Well, apart from the Gulf states – thanks in large part to coming from such a low base that even subcontinental coolies are an improvement over the natives.

Otherwise, the cognitive impact of immigration – at least as proxied by the differences in performance on the PISA tests between the national average, which includes immigrant children, versus only native children – is almost entirely negative for its supposed beneficiaries across the entire world.

Even those few countries with expressly “cognitively elitist” immigration policies see only the most modest of benefits: Singapore: +0.7; Canada: -0.1; Australia: -0.2.

Otherwise, the only countries not to be significantly affected are those which see little immigration in general, such as Japan and Korea. So perhaps the best way of “winning” the game to attract quality immigrants is to avoid playing it in the first place.

Western Europe is a complete disaster zone, getting a harder cognitive hit even though the immigrant share of their population is considerably smaller than the US, where they constitute almost a quarter of the PISA-taking population. The German national average takes an astounding 2.4 IQ point hit due to immigrants. Moreover, there is no full convergence between first and second generation immigrants. Although one can hope the children of all those Syrian “doctors and engineers” will go on to become productive and loyal citizens, past experience suggests that they will merely bolster the sullen ranks of a permanent, growing, ethnically distinct, and highly criminalized underclass.

The situation in the US is actually considerably better than in Europe – the low-IQ Central Americans, who are not sending their best, are counterbalanced by the millions of talented East Asians, Indians, and other intelligent and highly motivated people who still want to make America their home. Thanks to that the world’s biggest immigrant nation only loses 1.3 IQ points due to all the newcomers. Donald Trump is promising a big beautiful wall to stem the rising tide of color from the south, but even if he fails to come through, at least the mestizos have better tempers and aren’t wont to blow up like the Mohammedans. The choice between Eurabian dhimmitude or fusing with La Raza Cosmica isn’t exactly hard.

Russia only loses 0.4 IQ points due to immigration, which sounds surprising low, given that Central Asia appears to be a cognitive black hole – Kyrgyzstan, by far not the worst state in the region, came dead last in PISA 2012, and Lynn and Grigoriev have estimated the IQs of Kazakhs and Uzbeks in Kazakhstan to lie in the 80s (very comparable to the chasm between European America and Central America).

I suspect this is down to the following three big factors.

First, for all the nationalist rhetoric, in comparative terms the demographic inflow into Russia from the “Global South” is still rather modest; (official) annual immigration runs at about 300,000 souls per year, and a big part of that now accrues to Ukraine (in contrast, about 500,000 people immigrate to the UK every year, despite its population being more than twice lower than Russia’s). This is backed up by the PISA 2015 statistics, according to which only 7% of the Russian schoolchildren who sat the test have an immigrant background, versus 17% in both the UK and Germany, and 23% in the US.

Second, I assume that the children of the ethnic Russians who repatriated to Russia in the 1990s – in absolute numbers, they would still easily outnumber the Central Asians and Caucasians who came in the 2000s – are also counted as immigrants, and thus “dilute” the negative influence of the Uzbeks and Tajiks. Finally, it is also quite likely that the Central Asian “immigrant” Russians are brighter than the average Russian who never left: First, it was typically (genuine) doctors, engineers, and other specialists who were sent to develop Central Asia under the Soviet Union, and second, getting out of the place after the Soviet collapse was kind of an IQ test of its own. Both of these points may have served to artificially raise the quality of statistically-defined immigrants to Russia and to thus dilute the size of its hit on Russian national IQ.

The UK doesn’t do too badly – only a 0.9 IQ point hit – because the Anjem Choudarys are partially canceled out by talented and ambitious Europeans. Many of the finance and technological firms in the City of London are majority staffed by talented foreigners. There are 200,000 French citizens in London.

Given the strong dependence between national IQ and economic prosperity, the globalist open borders project presents a serious challenge to the long-term viability of the First World cognitive engines that drive the vast bulk of technological progress – progress that is already threatened by the dysgenic trends embedded in post-Malthusian society and the banal fact that problems tend to get harder, not easier, as you ascend the technological ladder. This is not to even mention the risk of “institutional contagion” from newcomers who are culturally and perhaps biologically incompatible with that unique blend of individualism and commitment to the commonweal that facilitated the rise of European civilization.

As the neoreactionaries have argued, to cultivate a garden, you first need to build a wall. We needed to have started building it yesterday, but late is better than never.

“The German national average takes an astounding 2.4 IQ point hit due to immigrants.”

The depressing thing is, even if that fact were acknowledged in Germany it would simply be regarded as evidence for discrimination against immigrants and institutional racism in the education system and used to argue for even greater efforts against “racism”. Don’t know if you’ve heard about him, but a few years ago there was great furore in Germany about Thilo Sarrazin’s book Deutschland schafft sich ab which had some HBD-inspired parts…it became clear back then that a very large number of supposedly educated Germans refuses to even think about questions like IQ and hereditary factors for it, let alone something like dysgenics.
But depressing as it is, interesting read…I especially liked the part about escaping from Central Asia after the Soviet collapse as some sort of IQ test

Sarrazin was big news in Hungary. I don't know about other countries (except I know he was big in all German speaking countries), but I know that on the iSteve blog he was covered extensively. So probably most readers in these corners of the web know about him.

These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.

Rosstat database, downloaded migration to Russian regions from Uzbekistan for 1993-2015 (seems to be representative of Central Asia in general), image:

http://imgur.com/bRLhlLZ

According to official statistics, the Uzbeks seem to be evenly spread out across Russia; in fact, I would say considerably more so than is plausible. I appreciate that Moscow housing isn't cheap, even if you cram 20 people in an apartment, but still I have a hard time imagining fewer Uzbeks went to Moscow (2,165) than to Primorsky Krai (2,517).

According to official statistics, the Uzbeks seem to be evenly spread out across Russia; in fact, I would say considerably more so than is plausible. I appreciate that Moscow housing isn’t cheap, even if you cram 20 people in an apartment, but still I have a hard time imagining fewer Uzbeks went to Moscow (2,165) than to Primorsky Krai (2,517).

Those numbers are ridiculous. It is not clear what they actually show, probably, the number of people who got a long-term permanent residence permit which indeed is not easy to get, so not many do. The actual number of Uzbeks in Russia is close to 2 millions, and the overall number of Central Asians is close to 4 millions.
http://migrant.ru/rossiya-kolichestvo-grazhdan-uzbekistana-sokrashhaetsya-chislo-priezzhix-iz-drugix-stran-regiona-rastet/
http://migrant.ferghana.ru/tag/statistika
https://гувм.мвд.рф/upload/site1/document_file/Itogovyy_doklad_na_19.02.16.pdf

"The German national average takes an astounding 2.4 IQ point hit due to immigrants."

The depressing thing is, even if that fact were acknowledged in Germany it would simply be regarded as evidence for discrimination against immigrants and institutional racism in the education system and used to argue for even greater efforts against "racism". Don't know if you've heard about him, but a few years ago there was great furore in Germany about Thilo Sarrazin's book Deutschland schafft sich ab which had some HBD-inspired parts...it became clear back then that a very large number of supposedly educated Germans refuses to even think about questions like IQ and hereditary factors for it, let alone something like dysgenics.
But depressing as it is, interesting read...I especially liked the part about escaping from Central Asia after the Soviet collapse as some sort of IQ test :-)

Yes, I’m aware of Sarrazin, and the scandal around his book. I recall Sailer wrote quite a bit about that when it was in the news.

Incidentally, I think it’s pretty funny that the most intelligent macro-region of Europe (the Germanic lands) are doing so much to “level the playing field.”

The latest mass immigration to Israel has been from Russia which has a 3 point IQ advantage over Israel yet Israel loses .87 in IQ as a result.

Germany’s immigrants are overwhelmingly whites from Eastern Europe, Southern Europe and Turkey while the immigrants in France are mostly blacks and browns from Africa, yet Germany loses 0.86 IQ points more than France as a result of immigration.

Switzerland’s immigrant population is overwhelmingly European. Few Africans, Turks or MENAs. Yet it lost even more than Germany in IQ points.

Austria and Luxembourg’s immigrant population is overwhelmingly from the European Union nations, yet along with Germany and Switzerland they constitute the four worst losers in IQ points.

The Conclusion is unavoidable: immigration from European countries is significantly more harmful to a nation’s intelligence than immigration from Africa, Asia, MENA, Latin America.

The latest mass immigration to Israel has been from Russia which has a 3 point IQ advantage over Israel yet Israel loses .87 in IQ as a result.

Most repatriates from the former SU returned during the 1990s. By the mid 2000s the Soviet Aliya run dry. The map is about PISA 2015 that covers students born in 2000. The same are for Germany, etc. Most internal EU immigrants are temporary adult workers and hence do not participate in PISA. Anatoly will clear it further, I hope.

Switzerland simply does not have a more dysgenic immigration policy than Germany, Netherlands, and Sweden.

I also do not see how China's nearly complete lack of immigrants could cause it to lose more than 0.25 points.

This is still welcome work, I hope Karlin works to improve his first draft. I would suggest simply ignoring countries without substantial immigration and focusing on the big ones in Western Europe and the Anglosphere.

The latest mass immigration to Israel has been from Russia which has a 3 point IQ advantage over Israel yet Israel loses .87 in IQ as a result.

Germany's immigrants are overwhelmingly whites from Eastern Europe, Southern Europe and Turkey while the immigrants in France are mostly blacks and browns from Africa, yet Germany loses 0.86 IQ points more than France as a result of immigration.

Switzerland's immigrant population is overwhelmingly European. Few Africans, Turks or MENAs. Yet it lost even more than Germany in IQ points.

Austria and Luxembourg's immigrant population is overwhelmingly from the European Union nations, yet along with Germany and Switzerland they constitute the four worst losers in IQ points.

The Conclusion is unavoidable: immigration from European countries is significantly more harmful to a nation's intelligence than immigration from Africa, Asia, MENA, Latin America.

immigration from European countries is significantly more harmful to a nation’s intelligence than immigration from Africa, Asia, MENA, Latin America.

Only if you leave out “per capita.”

However the underlying point is correct – the general case is no nation needs immigrants who are below that nation’s average IQ wherever they come from.

No one would suggest cloning the left side of their nation’s bell curve and yet that is basically what mass immigration for cheap labor does.

The latest mass immigration to Israel has been from Russia which has a 3 point IQ advantage over Israel yet Israel loses .87 in IQ as a result.

Germany's immigrants are overwhelmingly whites from Eastern Europe, Southern Europe and Turkey while the immigrants in France are mostly blacks and browns from Africa, yet Germany loses 0.86 IQ points more than France as a result of immigration.

Switzerland's immigrant population is overwhelmingly European. Few Africans, Turks or MENAs. Yet it lost even more than Germany in IQ points.

Austria and Luxembourg's immigrant population is overwhelmingly from the European Union nations, yet along with Germany and Switzerland they constitute the four worst losers in IQ points.

The Conclusion is unavoidable: immigration from European countries is significantly more harmful to a nation's intelligence than immigration from Africa, Asia, MENA, Latin America.

What makes you think the emigrants are representative samples of the respective countries’ populations?

The marks of the International Student Assessment Program (Pisa) point to a large difference between public (federal, state and municipal) and private schools in Brazil. Private Brazilian schools still perform less than the average of rich countries in Brazil. Science and Mathematics.

In science, the private network/schools had 487 points (the rich countries had 493 points) – 93 points higher than the state network and 158 in front of the municipal. The two public networks did not even reach level two, considered by the OECD as the basic of proficiency that allows learning and full participation in the social, economic and civic life of modern societies.

In mathematics, private schools are in level 2 and have averaged 463 points (the state network/schools is 369 and the municipal school is 311 – placing them at level 1A, when students are unable to employ algorithms, formulas and procedures to solve Problems with whole numbers) and were 27 points below the average for rich countries.

Only in reading the Brazilian private network reached the same average of the developed countries – 493 points, reaching level 3 of proficiency (in the state network was of 402 and in the municipal one, of 325 – locating them in level 1A, when the student only obtains Recognize the main subject in a text)

They leave because they are, or feel, unsuccessful in their native country.

In an agricultural country where physical strength and stamina lead to success, misfits will probably have higher IQ than the successful natives, and will move to a place where they think their higher IQ will be valued.

In a high-tech country where raw IQ leads to success, misfits probably have lower IQ, and will tend to move to a place where physical strength is more important.

The net result is to steepen the IQ gradient between the agricultural and tech countries.

One-third of the students enrolled in elementary and middle school private schools who declared the ethnicity considered to be black (includes the classification “black and brown”). In public schools, this index exceeds half, reaching 56.4% of the students.

However, this third of blacks declared from the private network / school does not come close to the proportion of this ethnic group among the population of children and young people aged 5 to 24 years. The public exceeds the national average. In this age group, according to IBGE, 48% of Brazilians say they are black and brown (this is the terminology adopted by the institute).

The ethnicity of the students was first raised in the 2005 School Census, done by Inep (National Institute of Educational Studies and Research). The results were ready at the end of last month.

The body inserted in the questionnaire answered by parents and students the item “race / color”. Although optional, the self-declaration generated controversy, taking about 20% not to pronounce themselves.

There is a similarity between private and public networks, according to the census. The percentage of black and brown pupils does not vary much between elementary school (1st to 8th grade) and average.

In private schools, 34% of elementary students who declared the ethnic group said they were black and brown – about 30% in the middle. In the public network, the index is 60% and 57%, respectively.

Diogo Rodrigues Dias, 13, an 8th grade student from a private school in São Paulo, says he only has a black classmate like him in the class. He is in a private school because his father says he noticed the delay when he tried the college entrance exam and was disapproved.

According to Tânia Portella, Ação Educativa’s research advisor, one of the factors that can explain the indexes of the public network is the universalization of elementary education from the 70′s. This generated a demand for the middle level, which is beginning to be supplied. In private individuals, the percentage is considered low, reflecting social differences and discrimination.

The director of Statistics of Basic Education of Inep, Maria Inês Gomes de Sá Pestana, considers that the boycott of the questionnaire may have contributed to the little difference between primary and secondary. This is because other studies have pointed to “whitening” in education, that is, blacks enter school, but are unable to advance in studies.

It is also at the point of permanence that Professor Marcelo Paixão, from the Institute of Economics of UFRJ (Federal University of Rio de Janeiro), focuses the analysis. “It’s no use merely saying the percentage of blacks. Apparently, it can be good.” The question is the difference in achievement throughout school life. ”

The teacher recalls that as blacks advance in sets, the age-appropriate distortion rises. While 53 percent of 10-year-old white children were in the ideal age range, only 35 percent of black children fit the profile.

Distortion rises at age 17 – 32% of white girls were in the appropriate series, compared to 13% of black adolescents.

The latest mass immigration to Israel has been from Russia which has a 3 point IQ advantage over Israel yet Israel loses .87 in IQ as a result.

Germany's immigrants are overwhelmingly whites from Eastern Europe, Southern Europe and Turkey while the immigrants in France are mostly blacks and browns from Africa, yet Germany loses 0.86 IQ points more than France as a result of immigration.

Switzerland's immigrant population is overwhelmingly European. Few Africans, Turks or MENAs. Yet it lost even more than Germany in IQ points.

Austria and Luxembourg's immigrant population is overwhelmingly from the European Union nations, yet along with Germany and Switzerland they constitute the four worst losers in IQ points.

The Conclusion is unavoidable: immigration from European countries is significantly more harmful to a nation's intelligence than immigration from Africa, Asia, MENA, Latin America.

Keep the articles coming … this one is brilliant. I sense that “QED” should have been inserted at the end of the last paragraph.

The saddest thing about globalism and open borders is that these have evidently been the agenda of the Atlanticist elite on both sides of the Atlantic since the end of WWII. Their goal — a New World Order — was to end nationalism and nations once and for all. Yet, the impact of globalism and open borders are only now, in a nick of time, coming into the public consciousness. I’m recalling the story about the French economist Jean Monnet stating that they (the elite) would have to sneak what became the European Union on the various European populations. Sneak they did and they were successful.

The same stealth was practiced in the United States with the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 with its demographic contagion called “family reunification”. A few years ago, not knowing what was going on behind the scenes, I was scratching my head upon learning that in 1980 there were 10,ooo Ghanaians in the United States; now there are over 235,000. In 1990, there were 200,00 Haitians in the United States; now there are over 612,000. (I wonder how Haitian voodoo will fit in with our European culture and heritage?) The latest media focus has been on Somali immigration — over 97,000 since 2001 in a steady stream across both Democratic and Republican administrations. The Hispanic tsunami from Mexico and Central America needs no mention.

In a situation similar to Jean Monnet and the EU, we are late to understand that massive immigration to the United States from Third World countries (with their alien religions and cultures) was planned and executed by an elite that worked hard over the decades to camouflage what they were doing.

Dear AKarlin Sir,
If Central Asians are so IQ disadvantaged, then how come they managed to subjugate Russians in the Middle Ages? or were Russians only subjugated by the Mongols who tend to be at 100? I wonder what level of IQ did the Huns have as they managed to raze through Western Europe also

1500 and even 500 years ago IQ levels could have been very different from what they are now.

For example Greg Cochran thinks Middle Eastern IQs before the Arab conquest might've been around 100 (the IQ of Maronite hill farmers). It's also likely that European (probably including Russians etc.) IQs were lower that time, cf. Greg Clark's work, especially A Farewell to Alms.

So Mongols might have had an IQ advantage over Russians, and Tatars etc. might've been their equals. But the reason for their conquest was the huge military advantage of nomads, regardless of IQ.

(1) IQ probably isn't very central to nomadic military success (though you have to admit that it is curious that the most successful nomadic empire, that of the Mongols, was also created by its most intelligent representatives).

Nomads, despite their demographic deficiency, have a number of huge advantages against settled societies: Strategic depth; much greater mobilization potential; more adept at horse-riding and archery/hunting; much easier to reprenish horse stocks; physically stronger due to more fats/protein in diet (incidentally, better diet means that IQ advantage accruing to agriculturalists may have also been canceled out, though that's more speculative).

(2) As you yourself point out, it was the Mongols who beat the Russians (it is called the Mongol-Tatar yoke after all). Kazakhs, Uzbeks, etc. never subjugated Russia.

History knows a lot of example when people on a lower stage of development conquered more advanced nations. The Gauls threatened Rome, the Germanic tribes conquered the Western Roman Empire, the Anglo-Saxons conquered Britain, the Normans conquered Northern France and Sicily, the Hungarians conquered Pannonia, the Arabs conquered the MENA. Finally at the same time with the Mongols the Lithuanians conquered much of ancient Russia. And the Lithuanians must have been really backward, they were one of the last nations in Europe who remained pagan till the 14th century, they knew no writing up to the Reformation. Overall it was not required much IQ to conquer. One just needed to kill the elites and their army to conquer a land. Many primitive tribes are very militaristic and if a land has a period of internal political troubles then it might easily fall under the nearby primitives.

As for the Mongols, some argue their success might owe much to the Chinese technologies and organization.

There was a magazine called Military History that highlighted some of the Mongol military techniques. They didn't take a lot of IQ but they were in many cases quite unique.

One of the things they did was use catapults to fling dead decaying animals over the walls of a city during a siege - a form of biological warfare. They used psychological warfare - they promised that the city could live in peace within the empire if they surrendered but everybody would be killed if they resisted. This lead to many a victory without ever having a battle. They utilized a strategy of allowing an enemy to weaken from within. They would attack and leave the enemy severely wounded and leave. Due to the ensuing famine and internal power struggles the enemy would be too weak to resist the Mongols when they came back a few years later to finish the job. They had the recurved composite bow which was an amazingly powerful weapon for the time.

The had good generals. The article told of their victory over the Teutonic Knights. They dug a ditch and covered it with grass where archers lay in wait. A small force attacked the Knights and they gave chase. Once the Knights were between the archers and the cavalry, the cavalry turned and the knights were cut down from archery from both sides.

History is replete with historical episodes in which peoples with lower IQ conquered peoples with higher IQ.

A current example: The campesinos from Latin America are conquering the United States as Latin America with its lawlessness and other cultural picadillos moves north. The European-Americans are doing little about it. Perhaps a higher IQ is not a credible advantage in these contests.

I'm reminded of stories about people who are members of Mensa who cannot balance a checkbook or otherwise manage their lives.

The Huns lost and were turned back to Central Asia. Photius. Com has the average Mongolian IQ as 101 fairly high, higher than most countries. The Huns never conquered Europe. Where did you learn your history?

"The German national average takes an astounding 2.4 IQ point hit due to immigrants."

The depressing thing is, even if that fact were acknowledged in Germany it would simply be regarded as evidence for discrimination against immigrants and institutional racism in the education system and used to argue for even greater efforts against "racism". Don't know if you've heard about him, but a few years ago there was great furore in Germany about Thilo Sarrazin's book Deutschland schafft sich ab which had some HBD-inspired parts...it became clear back then that a very large number of supposedly educated Germans refuses to even think about questions like IQ and hereditary factors for it, let alone something like dysgenics.
But depressing as it is, interesting read...I especially liked the part about escaping from Central Asia after the Soviet collapse as some sort of IQ test :-)

Sarrazin was big news in Hungary. I don’t know about other countries (except I know he was big in all German speaking countries), but I know that on the iSteve blog he was covered extensively. So probably most readers in these corners of the web know about him.

Dear AKarlin Sir,
If Central Asians are so IQ disadvantaged, then how come they managed to subjugate Russians in the Middle Ages? or were Russians only subjugated by the Mongols who tend to be at 100? I wonder what level of IQ did the Huns have as they managed to raze through Western Europe also

1500 and even 500 years ago IQ levels could have been very different from what they are now.

For example Greg Cochran thinks Middle Eastern IQs before the Arab conquest might’ve been around 100 (the IQ of Maronite hill farmers). It’s also likely that European (probably including Russians etc.) IQs were lower that time, cf. Greg Clark’s work, especially A Farewell to Alms.

So Mongols might have had an IQ advantage over Russians, and Tatars etc. might’ve been their equals. But the reason for their conquest was the huge military advantage of nomads, regardless of IQ.

Excellent comment. People are very ignorant of the actual history of Islam, because it's too "controversial" to share, but if one digs into it he finds that the major tenet of Islam throughout the centuries was to dominate, convert, and subjugate by force all other peoples.

So essentially, low IQ Muslims took over both literally and genetically as they spread out of the deserts. They were up against mostly peaceful Christians, pagans, zororasts, Buddhists, etc who were no match.

So you have to consider the pre-muslim and post-muslim genetic makeup of a country. Take Turkey: today it is 99% Muslim, but it used to be the heart of a Christian empire once, with almost no Muslims. Once you understand exactly how Turkey went from 0% to 99% Muslim, you will truly understand Islam.

Dear AKarlin Sir,
If Central Asians are so IQ disadvantaged, then how come they managed to subjugate Russians in the Middle Ages? or were Russians only subjugated by the Mongols who tend to be at 100? I wonder what level of IQ did the Huns have as they managed to raze through Western Europe also

Not sure if trolling, but assuming you aren’t…

(1) IQ probably isn’t very central to nomadic military success (though you have to admit that it is curious that the most successful nomadic empire, that of the Mongols, was also created by its most intelligent representatives).

Nomads, despite their demographic deficiency, have a number of huge advantages against settled societies: Strategic depth; much greater mobilization potential; more adept at horse-riding and archery/hunting; much easier to reprenish horse stocks; physically stronger due to more fats/protein in diet (incidentally, better diet means that IQ advantage accruing to agriculturalists may have also been canceled out, though that’s more speculative).

(2) As you yourself point out, it was the Mongols who beat the Russians (it is called the Mongol-Tatar yoke after all). Kazakhs, Uzbeks, etc. never subjugated Russia.

The reason why the Mongols conquered Russia – and most of Europe during Genghis Khan, was because they had small technological advantage which in medieval times was huge. What was that technological advantage? The stirrup.

The Mongols were renowned for being great horsemen and using the stirrup apparently gave them the advantage of being able to raise themselves up in the saddle and chop heads more effectively, or use arrows better. While the Europeans – and probably the Russians too, used to sit in the saddle like a pile of turds – thus reducing their effectiveness. Amazing, isn’t it? I actually learned this in elementary school from my good old history teacher.

Does using the stirrup made the Mongolians more intelligent? I doubt it. They were just lucky that it made such a huge difference. Other than that, they had nothing else to show as proof of their “intelligence”.

Same with the Turks. They were terrorizing Europe for almost 200 years, twice coming close to conquering the whole Europe (the two sieges of Vienna) and converting everybody to Islam. Their technological advantage? Gunpowder and the cannon – which they didn’t even invent – the Chinese did. Did that make them more intelligent than the Europeans? I doubt it again.

One small (OK big) invention does not qualify them as more intelligent (especially if it’s not theirs to begin with). They simply stumbled upon it and recognized its potential. At the time the Europeans were living in the fairy tale middle ages, when the favorite method of defense were fortresses, which the cannon made almost obsolete. Sometimes you just get lucky, and one small technological advantage can make a huge difference, without intelligence playing a major part.

The Mongols also managed to emerge again as the preminent nomadic power again in the 1600 and 1700s. The Kalmyk basically cleansed the caspian steppe, and Dzungars conquered the uighurs while devastating the krygyz and kazakh hordes and the settled khanates

Thanks for the information, that’s a lot to chew on..I guess the Islamic tradition of cousin marriage also depressed the region, and may be weather in Iraq,Syria became much drier in the past few thousand years leading to higher degree of malnutrition? (Unlikely though)

@akarlin

No it was in earnest.. I have personally found PumpkinPerson’s attempt to give an unified version of world history through IQ very compelling, but I feel one or two other factors have to be taken into account , namely average racial testosterone and curiosity level (as mentioned in Dr. James Thompson’s blog)

I feel that curiosity index can be positioned as a derived unit which comes into existence when High IQ (125+) meets a higher than average level of testosterone..This might explain Western European success in scientific and engineering disciplines compared to East Asians. There are others reasons too, as noted by you, that the Chinese were on the cusp of the Scientific Method but then somehow fell into disarray.

So success of different races in terms of expansion and empire building can be a function of the
area enclosed by the IQ, Testosterone graph OR the volume enclosed by the IQ,Testosterone,curiosity index provided that there is a certain IQ/Testosterone ratio range to achieve empire building just as there needs to be certain Bore/Stroke ratio in engines to extract 9000+ rpm. (This would cancel out Sub Saharan Africa)

Anyways that’s my basic conjecture regarding impact of different races on world history.

Though I feel that temporary,occasional, permanent NoFap/semen retention can overcome limits of HBD when it comes to individuals as evinced from the lives of many Great Men.

I think a more effective strategy for the asian race would be to heavily modify their diet and remove all soy products from it, especially tofu; although I am sure there are other heavily estrogenic foods in the typical asian diet as well though. Could you imagine if you ate this feminizing shit from womb to tomb? Just imagine the effect it would have on the body, let alone the mind. I seem to recall reading somewhere that tofu/soy products are actually bad for the brain. If this is really the case then it might explain why many asian people are famously book smart but seem to lack common sense. At any rate, I can't help but feel pity for my people, for all our purported intelligence, we are not collectively smart enough to see that soy products are the source of a great deal of our physical woes (for the men especially).

Seems highly creative people don't have just (if is it) too much or to lower (active) testosterone (correlated with dopamine*) but how it varies, hormonally speaking, and at least among artists and intellectuals wee seeing more emotional variation/instability.

Scientific geniuses appear to be more hypo-emotionally instable/ ''schizoid'', and artistic geniuses more hyper-emotionally instable/euphoric types.

Testosterone, namelly active ones, may varies more and in more diverse/individual ways among european-caucasians than among other groups*

I feel that curiosity index can be positioned as a derived unit which comes into existence when High IQ (125+) meets a higher than average level of testosterone.

Yes, or at least something that correlates with testosterone.

If civilization selects for certain traits: say IQ and conscientousness and selects against "barbarian" traits like aggression, testosterone and you need an optimal mixture to get creative golden ages then civilizations would generally reach and then pass that optimal point.

Thanks for the information, that's a lot to chew on..I guess the Islamic tradition of cousin marriage also depressed the region, and may be weather in Iraq,Syria became much drier in the past few thousand years leading to higher degree of malnutrition? (Unlikely though)

@akarlin

No it was in earnest.. I have personally found PumpkinPerson's attempt to give an unified version of world history through IQ very compelling, but I feel one or two other factors have to be taken into account , namely average racial testosterone and curiosity level (as mentioned in Dr. James Thompson's blog)

I feel that curiosity index can be positioned as a derived unit which comes into existence when High IQ (125+) meets a higher than average level of testosterone..This might explain Western European success in scientific and engineering disciplines compared to East Asians. There are others reasons too, as noted by you, that the Chinese were on the cusp of the Scientific Method but then somehow fell into disarray.

So success of different races in terms of expansion and empire building can be a function of thearea enclosed by the IQ, Testosterone graph OR the volume enclosed by the IQ,Testosterone,curiosity index provided that there is a certain IQ/Testosterone ratio range to achieve empire building just as there needs to be certain Bore/Stroke ratio in engines to extract 9000+ rpm. (This would cancel out Sub Saharan Africa)

Anyways that's my basic conjecture regarding impact of different races on world history.

Though I feel that temporary,occasional, permanent NoFap/semen retention can overcome limits of HBD when it comes to individuals as evinced from the lives of many Great Men.

NoSurf (alluded by you in the Logging Off post) should also help

I think a more effective strategy for the asian race would be to heavily modify their diet and remove all soy products from it, especially tofu; although I am sure there are other heavily estrogenic foods in the typical asian diet as well though. Could you imagine if you ate this feminizing shit from womb to tomb? Just imagine the effect it would have on the body, let alone the mind. I seem to recall reading somewhere that tofu/soy products are actually bad for the brain. If this is really the case then it might explain why many asian people are famously book smart but seem to lack common sense. At any rate, I can’t help but feel pity for my people, for all our purported intelligence, we are not collectively smart enough to see that soy products are the source of a great deal of our physical woes (for the men especially).

It appears you need some sort of subscription to download them, but commenter "m" kindly pointed out the download link via sci-hub: http://sci-hub.cc/10.1787/888933433226

Update - I think they changed this literally within the past hour. It can now be accessed directly from: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/pisa-2015-results-volume-i/results-tables-immigrant-background-student-performance-and-students-attitudes-towards-science_9789264266490-table125-en

(1) IQ probably isn't very central to nomadic military success (though you have to admit that it is curious that the most successful nomadic empire, that of the Mongols, was also created by its most intelligent representatives).

Nomads, despite their demographic deficiency, have a number of huge advantages against settled societies: Strategic depth; much greater mobilization potential; more adept at horse-riding and archery/hunting; much easier to reprenish horse stocks; physically stronger due to more fats/protein in diet (incidentally, better diet means that IQ advantage accruing to agriculturalists may have also been canceled out, though that's more speculative).

(2) As you yourself point out, it was the Mongols who beat the Russians (it is called the Mongol-Tatar yoke after all). Kazakhs, Uzbeks, etc. never subjugated Russia.

The reason why the Mongols conquered Russia – and most of Europe during Genghis Khan, was because they had small technological advantage which in medieval times was huge. What was that technological advantage? The stirrup.

The Mongols were renowned for being great horsemen and using the stirrup apparently gave them the advantage of being able to raise themselves up in the saddle and chop heads more effectively, or use arrows better. While the Europeans – and probably the Russians too, used to sit in the saddle like a pile of turds – thus reducing their effectiveness. Amazing, isn’t it? I actually learned this in elementary school from my good old history teacher.

Does using the stirrup made the Mongolians more intelligent? I doubt it. They were just lucky that it made such a huge difference. Other than that, they had nothing else to show as proof of their “intelligence”.

Same with the Turks. They were terrorizing Europe for almost 200 years, twice coming close to conquering the whole Europe (the two sieges of Vienna) and converting everybody to Islam. Their technological advantage? Gunpowder and the cannon – which they didn’t even invent – the Chinese did. Did that make them more intelligent than the Europeans? I doubt it again.

One small (OK big) invention does not qualify them as more intelligent (especially if it’s not theirs to begin with). They simply stumbled upon it and recognized its potential. At the time the Europeans were living in the fairy tale middle ages, when the favorite method of defense were fortresses, which the cannon made almost obsolete. Sometimes you just get lucky, and one small technological advantage can make a huge difference, without intelligence playing a major part.

Your teacher was wrong. Stirrups long predated the Mongols and had spread throughout all of Europe by the close of the first millennium.

They simply stumbled upon it and recognized its potential. At the time the Europeans were living in the fairy tale middle ages, when the favorite method of defense were fortresses, which the cannon made almost obsolete.

Bombards were in heavy use in Europe from the 14th century. The guy who built the big guns used in the taking of Constantinople was a Hungarian (ironically, his name was Orban).

Genghis Khan did not conquer Europe. He conquered Central Asia and the eastern part of the Middle East.
Europeans were using stirrups 75 years after the Koreans invented them. War material inventions spread very quickly.

A Persian once explained to me how the Turks were able to conquer the Byzantine Empire and big chunks of Persia. He said the same as Anotoly Karlin did in comment 18.

The Mongols and Turks raided and ran. The sedentary cultures could never get them in a set battle. The Mongols also had vastly more soldiers, horses etc And they had nothing to lose.

Rosstat database, downloaded migration to Russian regions from Uzbekistan for 1993-2015 (seems to be representative of Central Asia in general), image:

http://imgur.com/bRLhlLZ

According to official statistics, the Uzbeks seem to be evenly spread out across Russia; in fact, I would say considerably more so than is plausible. I appreciate that Moscow housing isn't cheap, even if you cram 20 people in an apartment, but still I have a hard time imagining fewer Uzbeks went to Moscow (2,165) than to Primorsky Krai (2,517).

Those numbers are ridiculous. It is not clear what they actually show, probably, the number of people who got a long-term permanent residence permit which indeed is not easy to get, so not many do. The actual number of Uzbeks in Russia is close to 2 millions, and the overall number of Central Asians is close to 4 millions.

Dear AKarlin Sir,
If Central Asians are so IQ disadvantaged, then how come they managed to subjugate Russians in the Middle Ages? or were Russians only subjugated by the Mongols who tend to be at 100? I wonder what level of IQ did the Huns have as they managed to raze through Western Europe also

History knows a lot of example when people on a lower stage of development conquered more advanced nations. The Gauls threatened Rome, the Germanic tribes conquered the Western Roman Empire, the Anglo-Saxons conquered Britain, the Normans conquered Northern France and Sicily, the Hungarians conquered Pannonia, the Arabs conquered the MENA. Finally at the same time with the Mongols the Lithuanians conquered much of ancient Russia. And the Lithuanians must have been really backward, they were one of the last nations in Europe who remained pagan till the 14th century, they knew no writing up to the Reformation. Overall it was not required much IQ to conquer. One just needed to kill the elites and their army to conquer a land. Many primitive tribes are very militaristic and if a land has a period of internal political troubles then it might easily fall under the nearby primitives.

As for the Mongols, some argue their success might owe much to the Chinese technologies and organization.

The latest mass immigration to Israel has been from Russia which has a 3 point IQ advantage over Israel yet Israel loses .87 in IQ as a result.

Germany's immigrants are overwhelmingly whites from Eastern Europe, Southern Europe and Turkey while the immigrants in France are mostly blacks and browns from Africa, yet Germany loses 0.86 IQ points more than France as a result of immigration.

Switzerland's immigrant population is overwhelmingly European. Few Africans, Turks or MENAs. Yet it lost even more than Germany in IQ points.

Austria and Luxembourg's immigrant population is overwhelmingly from the European Union nations, yet along with Germany and Switzerland they constitute the four worst losers in IQ points.

The Conclusion is unavoidable: immigration from European countries is significantly more harmful to a nation's intelligence than immigration from Africa, Asia, MENA, Latin America.

The latest mass immigration to Israel has been from Russia which has a 3 point IQ advantage over Israel yet Israel loses .87 in IQ as a result.

Most repatriates from the former SU returned during the 1990s. By the mid 2000s the Soviet Aliya run dry. The map is about PISA 2015 that covers students born in 2000. The same are for Germany, etc. Most internal EU immigrants are temporary adult workers and hence do not participate in PISA. Anatoly will clear it further, I hope.

I think a more effective strategy for the asian race would be to heavily modify their diet and remove all soy products from it, especially tofu; although I am sure there are other heavily estrogenic foods in the typical asian diet as well though. Could you imagine if you ate this feminizing shit from womb to tomb? Just imagine the effect it would have on the body, let alone the mind. I seem to recall reading somewhere that tofu/soy products are actually bad for the brain. If this is really the case then it might explain why many asian people are famously book smart but seem to lack common sense. At any rate, I can't help but feel pity for my people, for all our purported intelligence, we are not collectively smart enough to see that soy products are the source of a great deal of our physical woes (for the men especially).

Thank you for your insight into the effects of a soy-based diet.

The European West has its environmental “gender-bending” correlate to soy and tofu in birth control pills. The anabolic steroids in birth control pills masculinize the female brain.

I think a more effective strategy for the asian race would be to heavily modify their diet and remove all soy products from it, especially tofu; although I am sure there are other heavily estrogenic foods in the typical asian diet as well though. Could you imagine if you ate this feminizing shit from womb to tomb? Just imagine the effect it would have on the body, let alone the mind. I seem to recall reading somewhere that tofu/soy products are actually bad for the brain. If this is really the case then it might explain why many asian people are famously book smart but seem to lack common sense. At any rate, I can't help but feel pity for my people, for all our purported intelligence, we are not collectively smart enough to see that soy products are the source of a great deal of our physical woes (for the men especially).

Conjectures

it was ALREADY proved*

people jump to the ”what we/they need to do NOW” without a factual and/or proved basis before.

(1) IQ probably isn't very central to nomadic military success (though you have to admit that it is curious that the most successful nomadic empire, that of the Mongols, was also created by its most intelligent representatives).

Nomads, despite their demographic deficiency, have a number of huge advantages against settled societies: Strategic depth; much greater mobilization potential; more adept at horse-riding and archery/hunting; much easier to reprenish horse stocks; physically stronger due to more fats/protein in diet (incidentally, better diet means that IQ advantage accruing to agriculturalists may have also been canceled out, though that's more speculative).

(2) As you yourself point out, it was the Mongols who beat the Russians (it is called the Mongol-Tatar yoke after all). Kazakhs, Uzbeks, etc. never subjugated Russia.

The Mongols also managed to emerge again as the preminent nomadic power again in the 1600 and 1700s. The Kalmyk basically cleansed the caspian steppe, and Dzungars conquered the uighurs while devastating the krygyz and kazakh hordes and the settled khanates

Thanks for the information, that's a lot to chew on..I guess the Islamic tradition of cousin marriage also depressed the region, and may be weather in Iraq,Syria became much drier in the past few thousand years leading to higher degree of malnutrition? (Unlikely though)

@akarlin

No it was in earnest.. I have personally found PumpkinPerson's attempt to give an unified version of world history through IQ very compelling, but I feel one or two other factors have to be taken into account , namely average racial testosterone and curiosity level (as mentioned in Dr. James Thompson's blog)

I feel that curiosity index can be positioned as a derived unit which comes into existence when High IQ (125+) meets a higher than average level of testosterone..This might explain Western European success in scientific and engineering disciplines compared to East Asians. There are others reasons too, as noted by you, that the Chinese were on the cusp of the Scientific Method but then somehow fell into disarray.

So success of different races in terms of expansion and empire building can be a function of thearea enclosed by the IQ, Testosterone graph OR the volume enclosed by the IQ,Testosterone,curiosity index provided that there is a certain IQ/Testosterone ratio range to achieve empire building just as there needs to be certain Bore/Stroke ratio in engines to extract 9000+ rpm. (This would cancel out Sub Saharan Africa)

Anyways that's my basic conjecture regarding impact of different races on world history.

Though I feel that temporary,occasional, permanent NoFap/semen retention can overcome limits of HBD when it comes to individuals as evinced from the lives of many Great Men.

NoSurf (alluded by you in the Logging Off post) should also help

Seems highly creative people don’t have just (if is it) too much or to lower (active) testosterone (correlated with dopamine*) but how it varies, hormonally speaking, and at least among artists and intellectuals wee seeing more emotional variation/instability.

Scientific geniuses appear to be more hypo-emotionally instable/ ”schizoid”, and artistic geniuses more hyper-emotionally instable/euphoric types.

Testosterone, namelly active ones, may varies more and in more diverse/individual ways among european-caucasians than among other groups*

The reason why the Mongols conquered Russia – and most of Europe during Genghis Khan, was because they had small technological advantage which in medieval times was huge. What was that technological advantage? The stirrup.

The Mongols were renowned for being great horsemen and using the stirrup apparently gave them the advantage of being able to raise themselves up in the saddle and chop heads more effectively, or use arrows better. While the Europeans – and probably the Russians too, used to sit in the saddle like a pile of turds – thus reducing their effectiveness. Amazing, isn’t it? I actually learned this in elementary school from my good old history teacher.

Does using the stirrup made the Mongolians more intelligent? I doubt it. They were just lucky that it made such a huge difference. Other than that, they had nothing else to show as proof of their “intelligence”.

Same with the Turks. They were terrorizing Europe for almost 200 years, twice coming close to conquering the whole Europe (the two sieges of Vienna) and converting everybody to Islam. Their technological advantage? Gunpowder and the cannon – which they didn’t even invent – the Chinese did. Did that make them more intelligent than the Europeans? I doubt it again.

One small (OK big) invention does not qualify them as more intelligent (especially if it’s not theirs to begin with). They simply stumbled upon it and recognized its potential. At the time the Europeans were living in the fairy tale middle ages, when the favorite method of defense were fortresses, which the cannon made almost obsolete. Sometimes you just get lucky, and one small technological advantage can make a huge difference, without intelligence playing a major part.

What was that technological advantage? The stirrup.

Your teacher was wrong. Stirrups long predated the Mongols and had spread throughout all of Europe by the close of the first millennium.

They simply stumbled upon it and recognized its potential. At the time the Europeans were living in the fairy tale middle ages, when the favorite method of defense were fortresses, which the cannon made almost obsolete.

Bombards were in heavy use in Europe from the 14th century. The guy who built the big guns used in the taking of Constantinople was a Hungarian (ironically, his name was Orban).

The guy who built the big guns used in the taking of Constantinople was a Hungarian (ironically, his name was Orban).

That was his first name, not his family name, but yeah, he was Hungarian, and worked for the Turks. (And the Turks were already enemies of Hungary at the time, there were campaigns in 1444, 1448, and then 1456.)

Those numbers are ridiculous. It is not clear what they actually show, probably, the number of people who got a long-term permanent residence permit which indeed is not easy to get, so not many do. The actual number of Uzbeks in Russia is close to 2 millions, and the overall number of Central Asians is close to 4 millions.
http://migrant.ru/rossiya-kolichestvo-grazhdan-uzbekistana-sokrashhaetsya-chislo-priezzhix-iz-drugix-stran-regiona-rastet/
http://migrant.ferghana.ru/tag/statistika
https://гувм.мвд.рф/upload/site1/document_file/Itogovyy_doklad_na_19.02.16.pdf

Unfortunately, the FMS was closed and merged into the MVD in April 2016, their more detailed statistics used to be at http://www.fms.gov.ru/about/statistics/, chapter "Сведения в отношении иностранных граждан, находящихся на территории Российской Федерации..." (some of it can be accessed through archive.org, though)

Dear AKarlin Sir,
If Central Asians are so IQ disadvantaged, then how come they managed to subjugate Russians in the Middle Ages? or were Russians only subjugated by the Mongols who tend to be at 100? I wonder what level of IQ did the Huns have as they managed to raze through Western Europe also

There was a magazine called Military History that highlighted some of the Mongol military techniques. They didn’t take a lot of IQ but they were in many cases quite unique.

One of the things they did was use catapults to fling dead decaying animals over the walls of a city during a siege – a form of biological warfare. They used psychological warfare – they promised that the city could live in peace within the empire if they surrendered but everybody would be killed if they resisted. This lead to many a victory without ever having a battle. They utilized a strategy of allowing an enemy to weaken from within. They would attack and leave the enemy severely wounded and leave. Due to the ensuing famine and internal power struggles the enemy would be too weak to resist the Mongols when they came back a few years later to finish the job. They had the recurved composite bow which was an amazingly powerful weapon for the time.

The had good generals. The article told of their victory over the Teutonic Knights. They dug a ditch and covered it with grass where archers lay in wait. A small force attacked the Knights and they gave chase. Once the Knights were between the archers and the cavalry, the cavalry turned and the knights were cut down from archery from both sides.

(1) IQ probably isn't very central to nomadic military success (though you have to admit that it is curious that the most successful nomadic empire, that of the Mongols, was also created by its most intelligent representatives).

Nomads, despite their demographic deficiency, have a number of huge advantages against settled societies: Strategic depth; much greater mobilization potential; more adept at horse-riding and archery/hunting; much easier to reprenish horse stocks; physically stronger due to more fats/protein in diet (incidentally, better diet means that IQ advantage accruing to agriculturalists may have also been canceled out, though that's more speculative).

(2) As you yourself point out, it was the Mongols who beat the Russians (it is called the Mongol-Tatar yoke after all). Kazakhs, Uzbeks, etc. never subjugated Russia.

Anatoly,

Wasn’t the Mongol army more than 50% Turkic by the time they conquered Russia?

Your teacher was wrong. Stirrups long predated the Mongols and had spread throughout all of Europe by the close of the first millennium.

They simply stumbled upon it and recognized its potential. At the time the Europeans were living in the fairy tale middle ages, when the favorite method of defense were fortresses, which the cannon made almost obsolete.

Bombards were in heavy use in Europe from the 14th century. The guy who built the big guns used in the taking of Constantinople was a Hungarian (ironically, his name was Orban).

Your teacher was wrong. Stirrups long predated the Mongols and had spread throughout all of Europe by the close of the first millennium.

Read this account of the conflicts between the Iberian Moors and the Franks under Charles Martel in the mid-700s, specifically the section "Aftermath", in which the Frankish innovation (or adoption) of stirrups is discussed that permitted them to field HEAVY CAVALRY to supplement their fearsome infantry, and gradually drive the Moors back beyond the Pyrenees.

The 700s, note. This does not discount other tactical innovations by the later Mongols, but let's get this misapprehension about the Mongol INVENTION of the stirrup sorted out, shall we? Parallel evolution is nothing new, I hope you will acknowledge.

I am by no means well-versed on the IQ Inc. literature/methodologies and in truth a bit of a sceptic (although I have taken several IQ tests in past decades)

(1) What is the standard deviation of the reported IQ scores here? I’ve seen estimates of 9-10. If so, changes of -1.3 or +6.35 are well within the realm of non-remarkable observations, are they not? Perhaps I am mistaken, and PISA scores have different sd’s and averages?

(2) To be clear I am not an advocate of unlimited immigration and believe that the West needs to halt the process until we have a better sense of what we are getting into. However, I think the strong conclusions drawn here need to be re-visited, or at least better explained, if these changes are statistically significant in the first place.

There was a magazine called Military History that highlighted some of the Mongol military techniques. They didn't take a lot of IQ but they were in many cases quite unique.

One of the things they did was use catapults to fling dead decaying animals over the walls of a city during a siege - a form of biological warfare. They used psychological warfare - they promised that the city could live in peace within the empire if they surrendered but everybody would be killed if they resisted. This lead to many a victory without ever having a battle. They utilized a strategy of allowing an enemy to weaken from within. They would attack and leave the enemy severely wounded and leave. Due to the ensuing famine and internal power struggles the enemy would be too weak to resist the Mongols when they came back a few years later to finish the job. They had the recurved composite bow which was an amazingly powerful weapon for the time.

The had good generals. The article told of their victory over the Teutonic Knights. They dug a ditch and covered it with grass where archers lay in wait. A small force attacked the Knights and they gave chase. Once the Knights were between the archers and the cavalry, the cavalry turned and the knights were cut down from archery from both sides.

The had good generals.

That probably took some IQ, then. The innovative tactics you describe seem IQ-heavy as well.

I am not so sure that really means you had high IQs given the relatively low level of sophistication in ancient wars. They certainly didn't have the alleged intelligence of Archimedes who during the defense of Syracuse is supposed to have used the polished shields of his troops to focus light and ignite fires on the Roman ships or use large counterweights and hooks on a lever to capsize those ships.

A lot of good generalship involves doing something the other guy doesn't expect you to - or thinks you can't do. There was nothing to stop the huge army of the Ottoman Turks from defending their flanks and making sure Sobieski's army could not put their cannons on the hills overlooking the Ottoman Army. They probably thought it could not be done, the same way the French at Diem Bien Phu thought they would pull the Vietnamese into a decisive battle but found out that the Vietnamese were able to man-haul their big guns through the jungle into high ground and pound the French.

Most societies knew throwing a dead animal down a well was a good way to poison the water. The Mongols weren't stupid but how much more were they advanced compared to antiquity given the 1000 years that passed.

If you go by homemade IQ drop (due to fertility differences, aka dysgenics), then Latin America takes the prize while the Scandinavian countries hardly experience dysgenic fertility at all due to their family policies which indirectly favor highly educated people (free/cheap childcare and an environment where mothers are generally in employment seems to do the trick). The problem however is that their non-dysgenic fertility gets dysgenic nevertheless due to immigration.

The most favorable conditions seem to be in Canada (selective migration paired with non-dysgenic fertility) and Japan (almost no immigration coupled with only lightly dysgenic trend). Of the developed countries, the US (comparably high dysgenic fertility) and Central Europe are fucked.

The generational IQ loss in Africa definitely seems exaggerated in Africa. I'm suspicious of any changes larger than 1 point per generation, and especially for countries with such low bases it doesn't look realistic. Can't comment on the rest.

"The most favorable conditions seem to be in Canada (selective migration paired with non-dysgenic fertility) and Japan (almost no immigration coupled with only lightly dysgenic trend). Of the developed countries, the US (comparably high dysgenic fertility) and Central Europe are fucked. "

Although not a huge part of the population, Canadian Amerindians lower the score of Natives in Canada. The lowest scoring Provinces in Canada, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, have the largest Amerinidan populations. If conditions don't start to improve for Amerindians, this will have a bigger impact in the future because of their high fertility.

due to their family policies which indirectly favor highly educated people (free/cheap childcare and an environment where mothers are generally in employment seems to do the trick).

I wouldn't agree that they do. The problem remains, like elsewhere, that high-IQ women spend their most fertile years in education or working rather than reproducing. In my highly educated Swedish SWPL MC/UMC surroundings, it leads to 0-2 children per couple. I think most aim for two. I don't personally know anyone my age or younger (let's say below 40) in my stratum who has had 3 children or more. In short, these policies do not seem to encourage the highly educated or intelligent to reproduce much.

The sole effect I'm aware of is that couples tend to cluster their two children to arrive about 2 years apart, because of the way child benefits are structured. It appears you get a maximally long paid parental leave that way. (Please don't ask me to delve into the details.)

I am by no means well-versed on the IQ Inc. literature/methodologies and in truth a bit of a sceptic (although I have taken several IQ tests in past decades)

(1) What is the standard deviation of the reported IQ scores here? I've seen estimates of 9-10. If so, changes of -1.3 or +6.35 are well within the realm of non-remarkable observations, are they not? Perhaps I am mistaken, and PISA scores have different sd's and averages?

(2) To be clear I am not an advocate of unlimited immigration and believe that the West needs to halt the process until we have a better sense of what we are getting into. However, I think the strong conclusions drawn here need to be re-visited, or at least better explained, if these changes are statistically significant in the first place.

Your teacher was wrong. Stirrups long predated the Mongols and had spread throughout all of Europe by the close of the first millennium.

They simply stumbled upon it and recognized its potential. At the time the Europeans were living in the fairy tale middle ages, when the favorite method of defense were fortresses, which the cannon made almost obsolete.

Bombards were in heavy use in Europe from the 14th century. The guy who built the big guns used in the taking of Constantinople was a Hungarian (ironically, his name was Orban).

The guy who built the big guns used in the taking of Constantinople was a Hungarian (ironically, his name was Orban).

That was his first name, not his family name, but yeah, he was Hungarian, and worked for the Turks. (And the Turks were already enemies of Hungary at the time, there were campaigns in 1444, 1448, and then 1456.)

If you go by homemade IQ drop (due to fertility differences, aka dysgenics), then Latin America takes the prize while the Scandinavian countries hardly experience dysgenic fertility at all due to their family policies which indirectly favor highly educated people (free/cheap childcare and an environment where mothers are generally in employment seems to do the trick). The problem however is that their non-dysgenic fertility gets dysgenic nevertheless due to immigration.

The most favorable conditions seem to be in Canada (selective migration paired with non-dysgenic fertility) and Japan (almost no immigration coupled with only lightly dysgenic trend). Of the developed countries, the US (comparably high dysgenic fertility) and Central Europe are fucked.

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/746/21683005190_eb722fb3c1_o.png

The generational IQ loss in Africa definitely seems exaggerated in Africa. I’m suspicious of any changes larger than 1 point per generation, and especially for countries with such low bases it doesn’t look realistic. Can’t comment on the rest.

It definitely is exaggerated. The measure is the more accurate, the more education outcomes resemble IQ distributions. in Africa you can assume that a lot of comparably intelligent people end up getting a low education because the education systems are shitty. Those undiscovered talents of course are included in the reproduction statistics of the low educated people.

Those IQ loss rates should be treated as the upper limit of loss, as children never perfectly in herit their parents IQ (I didn't account for regression to the mean) and education systems are not perfect (I assumed that the smartest middle educated person is slightly less intelligent than the dumbest highly educated person, or in other words, I sliced the normal distribution of IQ according to education levels and their distribution).

That probably took some IQ, then. The innovative tactics you describe seem IQ-heavy as well.

I am not so sure that really means you had high IQs given the relatively low level of sophistication in ancient wars. They certainly didn’t have the alleged intelligence of Archimedes who during the defense of Syracuse is supposed to have used the polished shields of his troops to focus light and ignite fires on the Roman ships or use large counterweights and hooks on a lever to capsize those ships.

A lot of good generalship involves doing something the other guy doesn’t expect you to – or thinks you can’t do. There was nothing to stop the huge army of the Ottoman Turks from defending their flanks and making sure Sobieski’s army could not put their cannons on the hills overlooking the Ottoman Army. They probably thought it could not be done, the same way the French at Diem Bien Phu thought they would pull the Vietnamese into a decisive battle but found out that the Vietnamese were able to man-haul their big guns through the jungle into high ground and pound the French.

Most societies knew throwing a dead animal down a well was a good way to poison the water. The Mongols weren’t stupid but how much more were they advanced compared to antiquity given the 1000 years that passed.

the Vietnamese were able to man-haul their big guns through the jungle into high ground and pound the French.

They don't have the big guns. wrong
Even if they have big guns, they can't bring them to bear in this battle. wrong again
Even if they have big guns, and deploy them for this battle, we will use our air superiority to knock them out. strike three

Nutrition studies barely get much larger than 30 to 40 participants. It's good enough.

"”… a study with TWELVE subjects proved that IQ increase with reforced study”"

You don't understand that soy has estrogenic compounds that lower testosterone in men. It's like BPA, a chemical in plastic. It's shown to have feminization effects on men and has it's also been shown to have negative effects for women, specifically when pregnant.

So just because this study was only on 12 men, doesn't mean it's wrong. You have to understand that different compounds and chemicals in foods do different things in the body.

"Whatever i don’t eat ”meat-soy” anyway.:

SOY DECREASES TESTOSTERONE.

"Why tiranossaurus rex was a big predator and with that LITTLE brain**"

Depending on the meat, it has high fat. Men who eat more meat have higher levels of testosterone than men who don't eat meat. Animal products contain fats and proteins that increase testosterone. It's largely due to the animal fats.

The latest mass immigration to Israel has been from Russia which has a 3 point IQ advantage over Israel yet Israel loses .87 in IQ as a result.

Germany's immigrants are overwhelmingly whites from Eastern Europe, Southern Europe and Turkey while the immigrants in France are mostly blacks and browns from Africa, yet Germany loses 0.86 IQ points more than France as a result of immigration.

Switzerland's immigrant population is overwhelmingly European. Few Africans, Turks or MENAs. Yet it lost even more than Germany in IQ points.

Austria and Luxembourg's immigrant population is overwhelmingly from the European Union nations, yet along with Germany and Switzerland they constitute the four worst losers in IQ points.

The Conclusion is unavoidable: immigration from European countries is significantly more harmful to a nation's intelligence than immigration from Africa, Asia, MENA, Latin America.

You got it man. Another example - US without the nuclear weapons and how much they influenced the outcome of the WW2 against Japan and how it transformed them into superpower which without those weapons they would have never be able to become to the extent that they became and why they would never give up on those nuclear weapons. Clearly technological advantage doesn't play any role in history. Do me a favor, will you? Don't respond to my comments anymore, you don't have the intelligence to discuss anything with me.

The latest mass immigration to Israel has been from Russia which has a 3 point IQ advantage over Israel yet Israel loses .87 in IQ as a result.

Germany's immigrants are overwhelmingly whites from Eastern Europe, Southern Europe and Turkey while the immigrants in France are mostly blacks and browns from Africa, yet Germany loses 0.86 IQ points more than France as a result of immigration.

Switzerland's immigrant population is overwhelmingly European. Few Africans, Turks or MENAs. Yet it lost even more than Germany in IQ points.

Austria and Luxembourg's immigrant population is overwhelmingly from the European Union nations, yet along with Germany and Switzerland they constitute the four worst losers in IQ points.

The Conclusion is unavoidable: immigration from European countries is significantly more harmful to a nation's intelligence than immigration from Africa, Asia, MENA, Latin America.

''... a study with TWELVE subjects proved that IQ increase with reforced study''

And in the long-long term...

Maybe this is the first reaction of the organism to adapt to new diet.

Whatever i don't eat ''meat-soy'' anyway.

Why tiranossaurus rex was a big predator and with that LITTLE brain**

How vegetarian-diet dinossaurs with huge bodies could have existed*

Why although similar meat-diet consume levels of southern and northern europeans the second group is or become taller*

or better,

you don't need ''explain''...

Nutrition studies barely get much larger than 30 to 40 participants. It’s good enough.

“”… a study with TWELVE subjects proved that IQ increase with reforced study””

You don’t understand that soy has estrogenic compounds that lower testosterone in men. It’s like BPA, a chemical in plastic. It’s shown to have feminization effects on men and has it’s also been shown to have negative effects for women, specifically when pregnant.

So just because this study was only on 12 men, doesn’t mean it’s wrong. You have to understand that different compounds and chemicals in foods do different things in the body.

“Whatever i don’t eat ”meat-soy” anyway.:

SOY DECREASES TESTOSTERONE.

“Why tiranossaurus rex was a big predator and with that LITTLE brain**”

Depending on the meat, it has high fat. Men who eat more meat have higher levels of testosterone than men who don’t eat meat. Animal products contain fats and proteins that increase testosterone. It’s largely due to the animal fats.

Only a long term study will satisfatorily to prove if soy really cause testosterone shrinking, and specially without previous artificial increase of testosterone caused by habitual excessive ''meat'' consume.

Men who eat more meat have higher levels of testosterone than men who don’t eat meat

SOOOURCE*

causation or causality**

I will not go to comment more in the progressively trashy PP blog (worse and worse with that ape and other trashy subhumans as you) AND i will not go more to ''debate'' with a mentally challenged insect as you, the last time of all.

You're just like a gymnast who think that is gifted and start to training difficult exercises BUT you can't do it, so instead you improved your performance you worsened it.

Translating to this context

You think you're a super-thinker and you push hard for yourself many intellectual challenges BUT you can't do it, so instead you improved your own performance you foolish yourself all the time and without a fu...ing pale awareness.

I already catch everything about you

You don't give a miserable f..ck to the non-human animal rights to have a minimally decent life,everybody choice to live this torment call life in their own way and you ''choice'' the prole mode, sculpting your muscles above a non-human animal 'holocaust'',

you think i'm the guy who use ad hoc ''rationalizations'' of course because you only use your mirror to see your muscular as.

but it's you who try to JUSTIFY your lack of any compassion, so instead you be ''direct, straight, honest''

just like that

''yes, i don't give a shutz to the non-human animal well being...''

you try justify via ad hoc why you can be a asshole and a kind person in the same time. NO.

You're a hopeless contradictory person who have a 88, nazi symbol in your own nickname, a blog with a bell curve and a comparative (both artificially manipulated) image of three women of the most important macro-races, but you internalize a lot of ''blank slate'' pre-conceptions and use academic-common sense proto-arguments, or appeal to the ''authority'' ( Razib agree with me) or just quoted other people, without google you no had any chance to remain live in most of debates you have participated.

Surprisling you're still a coward cuck or a miserable italian-american who don't know where you're going on. You have fear about some comments in PP blog, pathetic.

I already showed for you where or how you're shockling contradictory

a example

''no there such thing superior or inferior in evolution........ bacterias represented important part of earth ground''

translating to the good listener

''bacterias ARE SUPERIOR than humans'' (... in this aspect)

Typical from a average joey to contradict itself without take note about it = fooling yourself.

''Had a particularly large brain.''

They were geniuses...

This type of debate, a moral issue, is IMPOSSIBLY understandable by a kind of people as you.

It's not the same language, no doubt about it, waste of time.

You have a poorer ''moral theory of mind'', aka, empathy, you simply no have it well developed.

You're not only dead wrong on the details, your whole view of history is normie-tier. Looking for some specific invention as the cause of every political/military change shows great ignorance.

You got it man. Another example – US without the nuclear weapons and how much they influenced the outcome of the WW2 against Japan and how it transformed them into superpower which without those weapons they would have never be able to become to the extent that they became and why they would never give up on those nuclear weapons. Clearly technological advantage doesn’t play any role in history. Do me a favor, will you? Don’t respond to my comments anymore, you don’t have the intelligence to discuss anything with me.

Nutrition studies barely get much larger than 30 to 40 participants. It's good enough.

"”… a study with TWELVE subjects proved that IQ increase with reforced study”"

You don't understand that soy has estrogenic compounds that lower testosterone in men. It's like BPA, a chemical in plastic. It's shown to have feminization effects on men and has it's also been shown to have negative effects for women, specifically when pregnant.

So just because this study was only on 12 men, doesn't mean it's wrong. You have to understand that different compounds and chemicals in foods do different things in the body.

"Whatever i don’t eat ”meat-soy” anyway.:

SOY DECREASES TESTOSTERONE.

"Why tiranossaurus rex was a big predator and with that LITTLE brain**"

Depending on the meat, it has high fat. Men who eat more meat have higher levels of testosterone than men who don't eat meat. Animal products contain fats and proteins that increase testosterone. It's largely due to the animal fats.

You have to understand, but i know it’s impossible in your level, that you don’t understand enough what you believe you know, period.

Only a long term study will satisfatorily to prove if soy really cause testosterone shrinking, and specially without previous artificial increase of testosterone caused by habitual excessive ”meat” consume.

Men who eat more meat have higher levels of testosterone than men who don’t eat meat

SOOOURCE*

causation or causality**

I will not go to comment more in the progressively trashy PP blog (worse and worse with that ape and other trashy subhumans as you) AND i will not go more to ”debate” with a mentally challenged insect as you, the last time of all.

You’re just like a gymnast who think that is gifted and start to training difficult exercises BUT you can’t do it, so instead you improved your performance you worsened it.

Translating to this context

You think you’re a super-thinker and you push hard for yourself many intellectual challenges BUT you can’t do it, so instead you improved your own performance you foolish yourself all the time and without a fu…ing pale awareness.

I already catch everything about you

You don’t give a miserable f..ck to the non-human animal rights to have a minimally decent life,
everybody choice to live this torment call life in their own way and you ”choice” the prole mode, sculpting your muscles above a non-human animal ‘holocaust”,

you think i’m the guy who use ad hoc ”rationalizations” of course because you only use your mirror to see your muscular as.

but it’s you who try to JUSTIFY your lack of any compassion, so instead you be ”direct, straight, honest”

just like that

”yes, i don’t give a shutz to the non-human animal well being…”

you try justify via ad hoc why you can be a asshole and a kind person in the same time. NO.

You’re a hopeless contradictory person who have a 88, nazi symbol in your own nickname, a blog with a bell curve and a comparative (both artificially manipulated) image of three women of the most important macro-races, but you internalize a lot of ”blank slate” pre-conceptions and use academic-common sense proto-arguments, or appeal to the ”authority” ( Razib agree with me) or just quoted other people, without google you no had any chance to remain live in most of debates you have participated.

Surprisling you’re still a coward cuck or a miserable italian-american who don’t know where you’re going on. You have fear about some comments in PP blog, pathetic.

I already showed for you where or how you’re shockling contradictory

a example

”no there such thing superior or inferior in evolution…….. bacterias represented important part of earth ground”

translating to the good listener

”bacterias ARE SUPERIOR than humans” (… in this aspect)

Typical from a average joey to contradict itself without take note about it = fooling yourself.

”Had a particularly large brain.”

They were geniuses…

This type of debate, a moral issue, is IMPOSSIBLY understandable by a kind of people as you.

It’s not the same language, no doubt about it, waste of time.

You have a poorer ”moral theory of mind”, aka, empathy, you simply no have it well developed.

"Many people do not know how much protein they need or how much they are getting"

Right.

"vegetables, whole grains and legumes are excellent sources of protein without the health risks from meat and other animal products"

There are no 'health risks' from eating animal products. The one study that came out saying that red meat causes cancer, specifically red meat cooked over charcoal briquettes. I believe the increase in cancer was like 5 percent, I haven't read the study in a while. But what the stupid news articles didn't say was that the increase in cancer was extremely negligible.

One more thing, most plant proteins are incomplete proteins and you need to combine some plant proteins to make complete proteins. The average person doesn't know how to supplement their diet correctly.

"One study found that those who consume more animal protein increased their risk of diabetes by 22%. Excessive protein intake is also associated with osteoporosis, cancer, kidney failure and heart disease."

No it doesn't.

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2014/03/animal-protein-as-bad-as-smoking/

"Someone who weighs 70 pounds only needs 56 grams of protein a day. The recommended amount (RDA) of protein for the average adult is 0.8 grams per kilogram of body weight."

Does this person go to the gym or not? Protein recommendations depend on whether or not the person is a gym-goer.

"Carbohydrates are the body's primary source of energy and should occupy most of your plate"

LOL do you understand how horribly wrong this is?

Carbohydrates spike insulin the most. Insulin inhibits the breakdown of fat in the adipose tissue by inhibiting the lipase that hydrolyzes (the chemical breakdown of a compound due to a reaction with water) the fat out of the cell. Since insulin facilitates the entry of glucose into the cell, when this occurs, the glucose is synthesized into glycerol. Along with the fatty acids in the liver, they both are synthesized into triglycerides in the liver. Due to these mechanisms, insulin is directly involved with the shuttling of more fat into the adipocyte. Since insulin has this effect on fat metabolism in the body, it has a fat-sparing effect. Insulin drives most cells to prefer carbohydrates for energy. Putting it all together, insulin indirectly stimulates the accumulation of fat into the adipose tissue.

"Truth: There is no need to plan meals around complementary proteins . In 2009, the "Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics" (AND) released an article stating that eating a variety of plant foods throughout the day provides all the necessary amino acids. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention agrees with the DNA and discredits the rumor that humans need to eat certain proteins together to receive proper nutrition."

Ummmm if you eat two incomplete proteins that don't make a complete protein, you're not getting the correct amount of amino acids.

"Excess calorie protein will not magically turn into muscle. To lose weight in a healthy way, it is important to have a balanced diet with a focus on all the necessary nutrients. Instead of following the fad of proteins, many people could benefit by finding ways to incorporate plant sources of protein into their meals."

Protein-rich diets keep you sated longer and staves off muscle catabolism while you're in a caloric deficit. Protein needs to be high during a caloric deficit.

There are no problems with high-protein diets if the individual is healthy.

Thanks for the information, that's a lot to chew on..I guess the Islamic tradition of cousin marriage also depressed the region, and may be weather in Iraq,Syria became much drier in the past few thousand years leading to higher degree of malnutrition? (Unlikely though)

@akarlin

No it was in earnest.. I have personally found PumpkinPerson's attempt to give an unified version of world history through IQ very compelling, but I feel one or two other factors have to be taken into account , namely average racial testosterone and curiosity level (as mentioned in Dr. James Thompson's blog)

I feel that curiosity index can be positioned as a derived unit which comes into existence when High IQ (125+) meets a higher than average level of testosterone..This might explain Western European success in scientific and engineering disciplines compared to East Asians. There are others reasons too, as noted by you, that the Chinese were on the cusp of the Scientific Method but then somehow fell into disarray.

So success of different races in terms of expansion and empire building can be a function of thearea enclosed by the IQ, Testosterone graph OR the volume enclosed by the IQ,Testosterone,curiosity index provided that there is a certain IQ/Testosterone ratio range to achieve empire building just as there needs to be certain Bore/Stroke ratio in engines to extract 9000+ rpm. (This would cancel out Sub Saharan Africa)

Anyways that's my basic conjecture regarding impact of different races on world history.

Though I feel that temporary,occasional, permanent NoFap/semen retention can overcome limits of HBD when it comes to individuals as evinced from the lives of many Great Men.

NoSurf (alluded by you in the Logging Off post) should also help

I feel that curiosity index can be positioned as a derived unit which comes into existence when High IQ (125+) meets a higher than average level of testosterone.

Yes, or at least something that correlates with testosterone.

If civilization selects for certain traits: say IQ and conscientousness and selects against “barbarian” traits like aggression, testosterone and you need an optimal mixture to get creative golden ages then civilizations would generally reach and then pass that optimal point.

The latest mass immigration to Israel has been from Russia which has a 3 point IQ advantage over Israel yet Israel loses .87 in IQ as a result.

Germany's immigrants are overwhelmingly whites from Eastern Europe, Southern Europe and Turkey while the immigrants in France are mostly blacks and browns from Africa, yet Germany loses 0.86 IQ points more than France as a result of immigration.

Switzerland's immigrant population is overwhelmingly European. Few Africans, Turks or MENAs. Yet it lost even more than Germany in IQ points.

Austria and Luxembourg's immigrant population is overwhelmingly from the European Union nations, yet along with Germany and Switzerland they constitute the four worst losers in IQ points.

The Conclusion is unavoidable: immigration from European countries is significantly more harmful to a nation's intelligence than immigration from Africa, Asia, MENA, Latin America.

1500 and even 500 years ago IQ levels could have been very different from what they are now.

For example Greg Cochran thinks Middle Eastern IQs before the Arab conquest might've been around 100 (the IQ of Maronite hill farmers). It's also likely that European (probably including Russians etc.) IQs were lower that time, cf. Greg Clark's work, especially A Farewell to Alms.

So Mongols might have had an IQ advantage over Russians, and Tatars etc. might've been their equals. But the reason for their conquest was the huge military advantage of nomads, regardless of IQ.

Excellent comment. People are very ignorant of the actual history of Islam, because it’s too “controversial” to share, but if one digs into it he finds that the major tenet of Islam throughout the centuries was to dominate, convert, and subjugate by force all other peoples.

So essentially, low IQ Muslims took over both literally and genetically as they spread out of the deserts. They were up against mostly peaceful Christians, pagans, zororasts, Buddhists, etc who were no match.

So you have to consider the pre-muslim and post-muslim genetic makeup of a country. Take Turkey: today it is 99% Muslim, but it used to be the heart of a Christian empire once, with almost no Muslims. Once you understand exactly how Turkey went from 0% to 99% Muslim, you will truly understand Islam.

Islam spread quickly because the Byzantine Empire and the Persian Sassanid dynasty had bled each other dry in the prior decades and were exhausted. I doubt either empire could be described as being mostly peaceful\Christian\pagan etc.

Hominid average brain size increased about 7 cc /10k years over a period of 800,000 years, peaking at about 1500 cc about 10,000 years ago. Since then, average brain size has shrunk from 1500 cc to about 1350 cc. CroMagnons and Neanderthals both on average had larger brains than modern hominids…..they had to be plenty smart to survive and reproduce in an environment where modern 2016 hominids couldn’t make it a week without entering the food chain. This decrease in brain size, commencing with the transition from nomadic hunter gatherer to stationary agrarian, has been masked because: 1) knowledge is cumulative, and 2) 2% of any population does 98% of the thinking anyways. Modern hominids are being selected for traits like: ability to make drug deals using an obama phone, ability to swipe a food stamp card, ability to fake a lower back pain to get on disability, etc etc.

The reason why the Mongols conquered Russia – and most of Europe during Genghis Khan, was because they had small technological advantage which in medieval times was huge. What was that technological advantage? The stirrup.

The Mongols were renowned for being great horsemen and using the stirrup apparently gave them the advantage of being able to raise themselves up in the saddle and chop heads more effectively, or use arrows better. While the Europeans – and probably the Russians too, used to sit in the saddle like a pile of turds – thus reducing their effectiveness. Amazing, isn’t it? I actually learned this in elementary school from my good old history teacher.

Does using the stirrup made the Mongolians more intelligent? I doubt it. They were just lucky that it made such a huge difference. Other than that, they had nothing else to show as proof of their “intelligence”.

Same with the Turks. They were terrorizing Europe for almost 200 years, twice coming close to conquering the whole Europe (the two sieges of Vienna) and converting everybody to Islam. Their technological advantage? Gunpowder and the cannon – which they didn’t even invent – the Chinese did. Did that make them more intelligent than the Europeans? I doubt it again.

One small (OK big) invention does not qualify them as more intelligent (especially if it’s not theirs to begin with). They simply stumbled upon it and recognized its potential. At the time the Europeans were living in the fairy tale middle ages, when the favorite method of defense were fortresses, which the cannon made almost obsolete. Sometimes you just get lucky, and one small technological advantage can make a huge difference, without intelligence playing a major part.

Genghis Khan did not conquer Europe. He conquered Central Asia and the eastern part of the Middle East.
Europeans were using stirrups 75 years after the Koreans invented them. War material inventions spread very quickly.

A Persian once explained to me how the Turks were able to conquer the Byzantine Empire and big chunks of Persia. He said the same as Anotoly Karlin did in comment 18.

The Mongols and Turks raided and ran. The sedentary cultures could never get them in a set battle. The Mongols also had vastly more soldiers, horses etc And they had nothing to lose.

I don't think you have a full grasp of the issue, pal. It's not the question of whether the Europeans knew about the stirrups and whether they were using them, the issue is how they were using them. And they were using them just to get on the horse and that was it. The Mongols were using them throughout the battle, to stand up and get a better shot. Your theory about the military tactics of the Turks is bull too. Read about the sieges of Constantinople and Vienna. I don't see any "raids" there, just classic sieges.

PISA is not a test about cognitive ability but about learning levels achieved. Some people seem obsessed with finding racist implications where there is no adequate evidence. This is a complete misuse of a test whose design hopes to assist countries and educators to move education levels higher. Using it to reach conclusions about innate congnitive abilities is like using a thermometer to predict rain on the following Thursday.

Take Canada. It has a high level of immigration from all parts of the world. As many as 50% of residents of the Toronto area were born outside Canada. For more than 20 years immigration has been heavily from non-European countries. The system has been designed to control immigrant flows solely to ensure proper absorption of the newcomers without overwhelming community resources. The successful absorption of many from poorer nations that struggle to provide adequate services (many of which do not score well on PISA) has not materially degraded the high performance levels of Canadian education. Calling it “elitist” is not adequate unless you can delineate what that means and show its impact.

I concur with Olmec that data does not support any contention that immigration levels and source data show anything like this article proposes.

PISA is not a test about cognitive ability but about learning levels achieved.

1. PISA correlates very well with explicit tests of cognitive ability.

2. People with greater cognitive ability tend to achieve higher learning levels. This is especially germane to natives vs. second gen immigrants, who have been exposed to very similar learning (nutritional, etc) environments (who in Europe do not converge).

The successful absorption of many from poorer nations that struggle to provide adequate services (many of which do not score well on PISA) has not materially degraded the high performance levels of Canadian education.

Canada has a functionally cognitively elitist immigration policy based on points.

I mean it is practically an IQ test: http://www.canada-da.com/calculator.html

However, Canada still dilutes its high quality immigrants with Somali refugees and so the net effect is close to zero instead of positive.

The latest mass immigration to Israel has been from Russia which has a 3 point IQ advantage over Israel yet Israel loses .87 in IQ as a result.

Germany's immigrants are overwhelmingly whites from Eastern Europe, Southern Europe and Turkey while the immigrants in France are mostly blacks and browns from Africa, yet Germany loses 0.86 IQ points more than France as a result of immigration.

Switzerland's immigrant population is overwhelmingly European. Few Africans, Turks or MENAs. Yet it lost even more than Germany in IQ points.

Austria and Luxembourg's immigrant population is overwhelmingly from the European Union nations, yet along with Germany and Switzerland they constitute the four worst losers in IQ points.

The Conclusion is unavoidable: immigration from European countries is significantly more harmful to a nation's intelligence than immigration from Africa, Asia, MENA, Latin America.

These are all valid criticisms.

Switzerland simply does not have a more dysgenic immigration policy than Germany, Netherlands, and Sweden.

I also do not see how China’s nearly complete lack of immigrants could cause it to lose more than 0.25 points.

This is still welcome work, I hope Karlin works to improve his first draft. I would suggest simply ignoring countries without substantial immigration and focusing on the big ones in Western Europe and the Anglosphere.

"Considered to be" - what a scientific analysis. British cartoonists in the 19th and most of the 20th century loved to depict the Irish with ape-like features. This said more about the British than the Irish, however.

I d0n’t want to legally import high IQ nonwhite Legal Immigrants into the US……for I d0n’t want Asians in the Nati0n of my ancestors voting my Racial Tribe into a racial minority. In fact, I want the mass expulsion of all TATA Institute Grads out of America.

You'd be fine. Now we have a president that was unpresidented in US history.

Beginning from George Bush era for 8 years, and tiny blip of Obama for 8 years, and now we have a better president who will make America great again, I foresee in 100 years time, the Unites States of White nations will enjoy their pastime,

1. arguing over which reality show is the best,
2. contemplating where to work: Burger King or McDonald's
3. longing for the weekend where they can sit and watch from the TV where they show East Asians space-cruising planets to planets

Of course, War for Blair Mountain occasionally comes and chimes in his thought on immigration.

Don't believe me? Watch the UK, the once mighty country kneeling over President Xi and playing ping pong with Li Keqiang.

The drop-off in cognitive ability in the developed nations also strongly correlates to the rise of social media; this might explain China as well.

I take it that the grey nations are merely those that go largely untested. If Karlin’s assertion held water, one might reasonably expect a number of these grey spots might possibly be green due immigration; alternatively, they could be black-holes that are spewing out cognitive radiation lethal to the cognitive ability of the ROW.

Unfortunately, the FMS was closed and merged into the MVD in April 2016, their more detailed statistics used to be at http://www.fms.gov.ru/about/statistics/, chapter “Сведения в отношении иностранных граждан, находящихся на территории Российской Федерации…” (some of it can be accessed through archive.org, though)

It's probably worse than that: immigrants might be brighter than the population they leave behind in their home countries. So it might decrease IQs in their original countries as well...

It works both ways.

Universal rule: Migrants are misfits.

They leave because they are, or feel, unsuccessful in their native country.

In an agricultural country where physical strength and stamina lead to success, misfits will probably have higher IQ than the successful natives, and will move to a place where they think their higher IQ will be valued.

In a high-tech country where raw IQ leads to success, misfits probably have lower IQ, and will tend to move to a place where physical strength is more important.

The net result is to steepen the IQ gradient between the agricultural and tech countries.

Re list of Native IQ calculated from PISA:
1. Shoundn’t 100 be average IQ? In this calculation most people are below average (??)
2. Those above average are just a bit over the average, while those below tend to be dumb as doorknob (??)
3. You might argue that Jews aren’t what they used to be, but Israeli IQ at 95 is hard to believe.

Dear AKarlin Sir,
If Central Asians are so IQ disadvantaged, then how come they managed to subjugate Russians in the Middle Ages? or were Russians only subjugated by the Mongols who tend to be at 100? I wonder what level of IQ did the Huns have as they managed to raze through Western Europe also

History is replete with historical episodes in which peoples with lower IQ conquered peoples with higher IQ.

A current example: The campesinos from Latin America are conquering the United States as Latin America with its lawlessness and other cultural picadillos moves north. The European-Americans are doing little about it. Perhaps a higher IQ is not a credible advantage in these contests.

I’m reminded of stories about people who are members of Mensa who cannot balance a checkbook or otherwise manage their lives.

The much larger issue behind-loomimg over Anatoly’s comments….and nobody wants to talk about it:

1)Post WW2 Legal Immigrant policy:A highly racialized National Origins Immigration Policy that excluded all nonwhites….and no passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act. As a consequence, Barack Obama is never born….Hillary Clinton not even remotely a viable POTUS candidate in 2016…America 2016 is 90 percent White Folks!!!

2)post-WW2…Peace with the Soviet Union. This should have and could have been done.

Even larger point:1) never happened because East Coast WASP Elites wanted war with the Soviet Union-Russia for one simple reason:GREED!!!

Since the IQ Test score psychometric debate takes place in the context of post-1965 Immigration Policy….and post-1965 Immigration Policy is reducible to the Cold War with the Russkies!!!!…..The IQ test score debate is also a creature-artifact of the post-WW2 Cold War. This is the context in which the IQ test score debate is posed-and emerges….for otherwise, America would have happily remained 90 percent Native Born White American, completely labor self-sufficient….with a high-real-wage economy for The Historic Native Born White American Majority Working Class.

If you go by homemade IQ drop (due to fertility differences, aka dysgenics), then Latin America takes the prize while the Scandinavian countries hardly experience dysgenic fertility at all due to their family policies which indirectly favor highly educated people (free/cheap childcare and an environment where mothers are generally in employment seems to do the trick). The problem however is that their non-dysgenic fertility gets dysgenic nevertheless due to immigration.

The most favorable conditions seem to be in Canada (selective migration paired with non-dysgenic fertility) and Japan (almost no immigration coupled with only lightly dysgenic trend). Of the developed countries, the US (comparably high dysgenic fertility) and Central Europe are fucked.

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/746/21683005190_eb722fb3c1_o.png

“The most favorable conditions seem to be in Canada (selective migration paired with non-dysgenic fertility) and Japan (almost no immigration coupled with only lightly dysgenic trend). Of the developed countries, the US (comparably high dysgenic fertility) and Central Europe are fucked. ”

Although not a huge part of the population, Canadian Amerindians lower the score of Natives in Canada. The lowest scoring Provinces in Canada, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, have the largest Amerinidan populations. If conditions don’t start to improve for Amerindians, this will have a bigger impact in the future because of their high fertility.

Take a different perspective for a moment Loads of immigrant 15-year-old traumatised kids who may not speak the language well are not likely to do well on the PISA exam.

“Otherwise, the cognitive impact of immigration – at least as proxied by the differences in performance on the PISA tests between the national average, which includes immigrant children, versus only native children – is almost entirely negative for its supposed beneficiaries across the entire world.

Even those few countries with expressly “cognitively elitist” immigration policies see only the most modest of benefits: Singapore: +0.7; Canada: -0.1; Australia: -0.2.

Otherwise, the only countries not to be significantly affected are those which see little immigration in general, such as Japan and Korea. So perhaps the best way of “winning” the game to attract quality immigrants is to avoid playing it in the first place.”

PISA is not a test about cognitive ability but about learning levels achieved. Some people seem obsessed with finding racist implications where there is no adequate evidence. This is a complete misuse of a test whose design hopes to assist countries and educators to move education levels higher. Using it to reach conclusions about innate congnitive abilities is like using a thermometer to predict rain on the following Thursday.

Take Canada. It has a high level of immigration from all parts of the world. As many as 50% of residents of the Toronto area were born outside Canada. For more than 20 years immigration has been heavily from non-European countries. The system has been designed to control immigrant flows solely to ensure proper absorption of the newcomers without overwhelming community resources. The successful absorption of many from poorer nations that struggle to provide adequate services (many of which do not score well on PISA) has not materially degraded the high performance levels of Canadian education. Calling it "elitist" is not adequate unless you can delineate what that means and show its impact.

I concur with Olmec that data does not support any contention that immigration levels and source data show anything like this article proposes.

PISA is not a test about cognitive ability but about learning levels achieved.

1. PISA correlates very well with explicit tests of cognitive ability.

2. People with greater cognitive ability tend to achieve higher learning levels. This is especially germane to natives vs. second gen immigrants, who have been exposed to very similar learning (nutritional, etc) environments (who in Europe do not converge).

The successful absorption of many from poorer nations that struggle to provide adequate services (many of which do not score well on PISA) has not materially degraded the high performance levels of Canadian education.

Canada has a functionally cognitively elitist immigration policy based on points.

Karlin: "PISA correlates very well with explicit tests of cognitive ability."

PISA scores are NOT a reliable approximation of IQ, as your absurd list of 'native IQs converted from PISA according to calculations by commenter “m”', shows so well.

The racialreality blog, commented:

But Lynn already knows the pitfalls of his approach. Finland had the highest score in Europe on the 2006 PISA tests, and using his method leads to a calculated IQ of 107, yet he reports Finns' IQ as being just 97. Romanians' PISA score is near the very bottom of Europe, leading to an estimate of 85, though their measured IQ is in fact 94 according to Lynn, just three points lower than that of Finns. With discrepancies like that, there's absolutely no reason to trust his calculated IQs of around 100 and 90 for Northern and Southern Italians. Clearly, PISA scores are not a good substitute for IQ.

Furthermore:

Indeed, while some researchers report a strong correlation between general intelligence and educational attainment, one of Lynn's own sources, Deary et al. (2007), addressing two of his other sources, suggests that caution should be exercised when attempting to equate the two:
Whereas the correlations indicate that around 50% to 60% of the variance in GCSE [General Certificate of Secondary Education] examination points score can be statistically explained by the prior g [general intelligence] factor, by the same token a large proportion of the variance is not accounted for by g. Some of the remaining variance in GCSE scores will be measurement error, but some will be systematic. Thus, non-g factors have a substantial impact on educational attainment. These may include: school attendance and engagement; pupils' personality traits, motivation and effort; the extent of parental support; and the provision of appropriate learning experiences, teaching quality, school ethos, and structure among other possible factors (Petrides, Chamorro-Premuzic, Frederickson, & Furnham, 2005; Strand, 2003).'

Your absurd list has Argentina at 85, while Lynn himself reports Argentina's national IQ as 96.
His revised data( and work by Wicherts) places Italy at the top of Europe, at 102-103, but in your list, Italy is supposed to have a lower IQ than Portugal, which Lynn has reported as 91-95.
Ireland he reports at only 87-93. Etc, etc.

I d0n't want to legally import high IQ nonwhite Legal Immigrants into the US......for I d0n't want Asians in the Nati0n of my ancestors voting my Racial Tribe into a racial minority. In fact, I want the mass expulsion of all TATA Institute Grads out of America.

If you google..Google Images:NASA Rocket Scientists large blackboard Celestial Mechanics calculation....To make a long story short:all White Guys...White Shirts with ties about twenty-thirty of them doing a massive Celestial Mechanics Calculation on a yuge blackboard!!!!..0 Chinese Legal Immigrants and Hindu Legal Immigrants in the photo. This was a 1960s NASA publicity photo.....Who the F would be opposed to this Demographic state of affairs? The Chinese and Hindus in California?

I am not so sure that really means you had high IQs given the relatively low level of sophistication in ancient wars. They certainly didn't have the alleged intelligence of Archimedes who during the defense of Syracuse is supposed to have used the polished shields of his troops to focus light and ignite fires on the Roman ships or use large counterweights and hooks on a lever to capsize those ships.

A lot of good generalship involves doing something the other guy doesn't expect you to - or thinks you can't do. There was nothing to stop the huge army of the Ottoman Turks from defending their flanks and making sure Sobieski's army could not put their cannons on the hills overlooking the Ottoman Army. They probably thought it could not be done, the same way the French at Diem Bien Phu thought they would pull the Vietnamese into a decisive battle but found out that the Vietnamese were able to man-haul their big guns through the jungle into high ground and pound the French.

Most societies knew throwing a dead animal down a well was a good way to poison the water. The Mongols weren't stupid but how much more were they advanced compared to antiquity given the 1000 years that passed.

the Vietnamese were able to man-haul their big guns through the jungle into high ground and pound the French.

They don’t have the big guns. wrong
Even if they have big guns, they can’t bring them to bear in this battle. wrong again
Even if they have big guns, and deploy them for this battle, we will use our air superiority to knock them out. strike three

That's a perfectly understandable position that I have a lot of sympathy for: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/limits-to-cognitive-elitism/

Anatoly….Steve Sailer….and Jared Taylor….and Paul Kersey

If you google..Google Images:NASA Rocket Scientists large blackboard Celestial Mechanics calculation….To make a long story short:all White Guys…White Shirts with ties about twenty-thirty of them doing a massive Celestial Mechanics Calculation on a yuge blackboard!!!!..0 Chinese Legal Immigrants and Hindu Legal Immigrants in the photo. This was a 1960s NASA publicity photo…..Who the F would be opposed to this Demographic state of affairs? The Chinese and Hindus in California?

Genghis Khan did not conquer Europe. He conquered Central Asia and the eastern part of the Middle East.
Europeans were using stirrups 75 years after the Koreans invented them. War material inventions spread very quickly.

A Persian once explained to me how the Turks were able to conquer the Byzantine Empire and big chunks of Persia. He said the same as Anotoly Karlin did in comment 18.

The Mongols and Turks raided and ran. The sedentary cultures could never get them in a set battle. The Mongols also had vastly more soldiers, horses etc And they had nothing to lose.

I don’t think you have a full grasp of the issue, pal. It’s not the question of whether the Europeans knew about the stirrups and whether they were using them, the issue is how they were using them. And they were using them just to get on the horse and that was it. The Mongols were using them throughout the battle, to stand up and get a better shot. Your theory about the military tactics of the Turks is bull too. Read about the sieges of Constantinople and Vienna. I don’t see any “raids” there, just classic sieges.

The conquest of Constantinople and the numerous sieges of Vienna were done by Turks, not Mongolians completely different ethnic groups.
Those sieges occurred centuries after the Tatar Mongolians conquered Russia.
It's just rude that your reply to me was so agressive and arrogant The least you could do is to consult the 4th grade level Wikepedia about the difference between Mongolians and Turks
It was a Persian Muslim immigrant, a history prof back in Persia who explained to me how the raid and run strategy of the Turks was so successful

Read this account of the conflicts between the Iberian Moors and the Franks under Charles Martel in the mid-700s, specifically the section “Aftermath”, in which the Frankish innovation (or adoption) of stirrups is discussed that permitted them to field HEAVY CAVALRY to supplement their fearsome infantry, and gradually drive the Moors back beyond the Pyrenees.

The 700s, note. This does not discount other tactical innovations by the later Mongols, but let’s get this misapprehension about the Mongol INVENTION of the stirrup sorted out, shall we? Parallel evolution is nothing new, I hope you will acknowledge.

Welcome to the club. The club which misses the point, that is. How about you read this instead:

http://bigera5.weebly.com/the-mongolian-stirrup

Btw, the point that you missed, along with everyone else is: It's not important who invented the stirrups, but who was able to find a better use for them than anyone else. Inventing something doesn't mean that you'll be the best at it forever. Take example with the tank, the Brits invented it in WW1, but the best use for it was found by the Germans in WW2.

Thus saying that the Germans could not draw tactical advantage by using the tank because it's the British who invented it doesn't make any sense. Do you understand now? And enough already about the stupid stirrups.

My reading was that the Scythians invented the stirrup at around the time of the end of the Western Roman Empire. Prior to that there had been toe loops sometimes used only to help the rider get into the saddle. Stirrups are one of those inventions that seem so obvious that you can't imagine why they weren't invented almost immediately. People routinely rode on horseback for roughly 1000 years before stirrups were developed.

If you go by homemade IQ drop (due to fertility differences, aka dysgenics), then Latin America takes the prize while the Scandinavian countries hardly experience dysgenic fertility at all due to their family policies which indirectly favor highly educated people (free/cheap childcare and an environment where mothers are generally in employment seems to do the trick). The problem however is that their non-dysgenic fertility gets dysgenic nevertheless due to immigration.

The most favorable conditions seem to be in Canada (selective migration paired with non-dysgenic fertility) and Japan (almost no immigration coupled with only lightly dysgenic trend). Of the developed countries, the US (comparably high dysgenic fertility) and Central Europe are fucked.

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/746/21683005190_eb722fb3c1_o.png

due to their family policies which indirectly favor highly educated people (free/cheap childcare and an environment where mothers are generally in employment seems to do the trick).

I wouldn’t agree that they do. The problem remains, like elsewhere, that high-IQ women spend their most fertile years in education or working rather than reproducing. In my highly educated Swedish SWPL MC/UMC surroundings, it leads to 0-2 children per couple. I think most aim for two. I don’t personally know anyone my age or younger (let’s say below 40) in my stratum who has had 3 children or more. In short, these policies do not seem to encourage the highly educated or intelligent to reproduce much.

The sole effect I’m aware of is that couples tend to cluster their two children to arrive about 2 years apart, because of the way child benefits are structured. It appears you get a maximally long paid parental leave that way. (Please don’t ask me to delve into the details.)

In the Scandinavian countries the lower classes however don't aim for or have more children than the highly educated. In Sweden e.g., the lowest educated people have 2 children on average, while university educated people have 1.9. In Germany it's 1.6 for the low educated vs. 1.3 for the university graduates.

The diffference between the two countries (at least up until a few years ago), is that Swedish underclass women are working, while in Germany many are playing housewife. If you want to tackle underclass and immigrant fertility, bring their women into work. This will also break up traditional family patterns of immigrants, as it empowers their women.

In the US, university graduates have 1.7 children, which is not that different from Canada. However the low educated, which also have a higher share in the US than in Canada, have 2.4, while the smaller lower class in Canada breeds 1.9 children. The interesting thing is that most of the Canadian American fertility gap can be explained by the more fertile American underclass.

In Brazil, the lowest educated have 2.7 and the university educated have 1.2, to cite one of the very dysgenic countries (yes, this is lower than the corresponding German figure!).

There seems to be a commenting bug. I can see a reply to the above by Cicerone from my comments page (http://www.unz.com/comments/commenter/Pericles/) but the reply is not visible on this page.

"In the Scandinavian countries the lower classes however don't aim for or have more children than the highly educated."

I see, I would formulate that like this: Sweden (or Scandinavia) indirectly reduces the fertility of all women by having them work rather than be at home (assuming that is the cause). This would reduce the fertility of low-education women, who would be house wives, more than that of highly-ed worker bee women.

(Another contributing factor could be the Swedish population moving from the countryside to the city.)

You might well be right in this. Unfortunately, it should be added that we now have a large class of migrants who break this model.

A. Only smart people do not emigrate from war ridden countries
B. The whole world (Qatar and countries that were not included in this study, excluded) became more stupid after the immigration ‘crisis’ started
C. IQ is unevenly distributed. People who fled from war ridden countries are on average more stupid than those who live in countries that instigate wars.
D. This article reports a study that is reporting bullshit.

I did not read the methodology from the reported study, but the other options are too ludicrous to me.

I mean: suppose option C is true. So than in a country like Germany where 80 million people live (average IQ 100) plus 1 million refugees since the refugee ‘crisis’ started would lead to a roughly 2 point loss of IQ (exact 2.4 points)?

Than the average IQ of these refugees must have been: IQ=-((98×81)-(80×100))=62

That would mean that the average refugee in Germany is mentially challenged (see: http://www.free-iqtest.net/iq-score-guide.asp), which I fail to believe (actually it pains my mind, and I find it an utter disgrace that people want me to believe this ludicrous report)

So I opt for D, because ‘It pays to keep an open mind, but no so open that your brains fall out’ (Carl Sagan)

So than in a country like Germany where 80 million people live (average IQ 100) plus 1 million refugees since the refugee ‘crisis’ started would lead to a roughly 2 point loss of IQ (exact 2.4 points)?

Where exactly was it stated that all or indeed any of the IQ drop was caused by the recent refugee crisis?

The need for any future immigration needs more serious thought and discussion in the US. I believe that if put to a vote, most people would opt to end it altogether. We have 20% unemployment, and everything is becoming more automated and mechanized. What happens when all these third worlders are displaced by driverless cars? We have a hard enough time finding productive and rewarding things for our own citizens to do. The immigration concept is outdated and it’s been nothing but a ripoff and headache for the vast majority of US citizens for decades. Today it’s a pet project for do-gooders who never feel its negative effects, corporate America skinflints, and weaselly politicians hoping to import voters. How any of these things are good for our nation is beyond me. I hope Trump will be inclined to do something about this unwanted invasion beyond comments about ‘vetting.’ How about ‘ending.’

Only a long term study will satisfatorily to prove if soy really cause testosterone shrinking, and specially without previous artificial increase of testosterone caused by habitual excessive ''meat'' consume.

Men who eat more meat have higher levels of testosterone than men who don’t eat meat

SOOOURCE*

causation or causality**

I will not go to comment more in the progressively trashy PP blog (worse and worse with that ape and other trashy subhumans as you) AND i will not go more to ''debate'' with a mentally challenged insect as you, the last time of all.

You're just like a gymnast who think that is gifted and start to training difficult exercises BUT you can't do it, so instead you improved your performance you worsened it.

Translating to this context

You think you're a super-thinker and you push hard for yourself many intellectual challenges BUT you can't do it, so instead you improved your own performance you foolish yourself all the time and without a fu...ing pale awareness.

I already catch everything about you

You don't give a miserable f..ck to the non-human animal rights to have a minimally decent life,everybody choice to live this torment call life in their own way and you ''choice'' the prole mode, sculpting your muscles above a non-human animal 'holocaust'',

you think i'm the guy who use ad hoc ''rationalizations'' of course because you only use your mirror to see your muscular as.

but it's you who try to JUSTIFY your lack of any compassion, so instead you be ''direct, straight, honest''

just like that

''yes, i don't give a shutz to the non-human animal well being...''

you try justify via ad hoc why you can be a asshole and a kind person in the same time. NO.

You're a hopeless contradictory person who have a 88, nazi symbol in your own nickname, a blog with a bell curve and a comparative (both artificially manipulated) image of three women of the most important macro-races, but you internalize a lot of ''blank slate'' pre-conceptions and use academic-common sense proto-arguments, or appeal to the ''authority'' ( Razib agree with me) or just quoted other people, without google you no had any chance to remain live in most of debates you have participated.

Surprisling you're still a coward cuck or a miserable italian-american who don't know where you're going on. You have fear about some comments in PP blog, pathetic.

I already showed for you where or how you're shockling contradictory

a example

''no there such thing superior or inferior in evolution........ bacterias represented important part of earth ground''

translating to the good listener

''bacterias ARE SUPERIOR than humans'' (... in this aspect)

Typical from a average joey to contradict itself without take note about it = fooling yourself.

''Had a particularly large brain.''

They were geniuses...

This type of debate, a moral issue, is IMPOSSIBLY understandable by a kind of people as you.

It's not the same language, no doubt about it, waste of time.

You have a poorer ''moral theory of mind'', aka, empathy, you simply no have it well developed.

But i have.

''Decreased testosterone 19%.''

number-level of testosterone before and after.

my last words for you...

“You have to understand, but i know it’s impossible in your level, that you don’t understand enough what you believe you know, period.”

My friend, I literally handle peoples’s nutrition and I know what different micros and macros do in the body.

“Many people do not know how much protein they need or how much they are getting”

Right.

“vegetables, whole grains and legumes are excellent sources of protein without the health risks from meat and other animal products”

There are no ‘health risks’ from eating animal products. The one study that came out saying that red meat causes cancer, specifically red meat cooked over charcoal briquettes. I believe the increase in cancer was like 5 percent, I haven’t read the study in a while. But what the stupid news articles didn’t say was that the increase in cancer was extremely negligible.

One more thing, most plant proteins are incomplete proteins and you need to combine some plant proteins to make complete proteins. The average person doesn’t know how to supplement their diet correctly.

“One study found that those who consume more animal protein increased their risk of diabetes by 22%. Excessive protein intake is also associated with osteoporosis, cancer, kidney failure and heart disease.”

“Someone who weighs 70 pounds only needs 56 grams of protein a day. The recommended amount (RDA) of protein for the average adult is 0.8 grams per kilogram of body weight.”

Does this person go to the gym or not? Protein recommendations depend on whether or not the person is a gym-goer.

“Carbohydrates are the body’s primary source of energy and should occupy most of your plate”

LOL do you understand how horribly wrong this is?

Carbohydrates spike insulin the most. Insulin inhibits the breakdown of fat in the adipose tissue by inhibiting the lipase that hydrolyzes (the chemical breakdown of a compound due to a reaction with water) the fat out of the cell. Since insulin facilitates the entry of glucose into the cell, when this occurs, the glucose is synthesized into glycerol. Along with the fatty acids in the liver, they both are synthesized into triglycerides in the liver. Due to these mechanisms, insulin is directly involved with the shuttling of more fat into the adipocyte. Since insulin has this effect on fat metabolism in the body, it has a fat-sparing effect. Insulin drives most cells to prefer carbohydrates for energy. Putting it all together, insulin indirectly stimulates the accumulation of fat into the adipose tissue.

“Truth: There is no need to plan meals around complementary proteins . In 2009, the “Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics” (AND) released an article stating that eating a variety of plant foods throughout the day provides all the necessary amino acids. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention agrees with the DNA and discredits the rumor that humans need to eat certain proteins together to receive proper nutrition.”

Ummmm if you eat two incomplete proteins that don’t make a complete protein, you’re not getting the correct amount of amino acids.

“Excess calorie protein will not magically turn into muscle. To lose weight in a healthy way, it is important to have a balanced diet with a focus on all the necessary nutrients. Instead of following the fad of proteins, many people could benefit by finding ways to incorporate plant sources of protein into their meals.”

Protein-rich diets keep you sated longer and staves off muscle catabolism while you’re in a caloric deficit. Protein needs to be high during a caloric deficit.

There are no problems with high-protein diets if the individual is healthy.

Good for you!! What all the vegetarians and bogus nutritionists don't know is that ALL carbs, including organic fruits and vegetables, whole grain bread, brown rice quinona and ALL the carbs they recommend are turned into glucose in the GI tract and enter the blood stream as glucose.
Glucose is glucose whether it comes from a tablespoon of White sugar or a tablespoon of health food store organic brown rice.

High carb diets lead to obesity and diabetes. High protein diets lead to slenderness and health.

They leave because they are, or feel, unsuccessful in their native country.

In an agricultural country where physical strength and stamina lead to success, misfits will probably have higher IQ than the successful natives, and will move to a place where they think their higher IQ will be valued.

In a high-tech country where raw IQ leads to success, misfits probably have lower IQ, and will tend to move to a place where physical strength is more important.

The net result is to steepen the IQ gradient between the agricultural and tech countries.

How about “in an agricultural country here ownership of [enough] land leads to success”????

A. Only smart people do not emigrate from war ridden countries
B. The whole world (Qatar and countries that were not included in this study, excluded) became more stupid after the immigration 'crisis' started
C. IQ is unevenly distributed. People who fled from war ridden countries are on average more stupid than those who live in countries that instigate wars.
D. This article reports a study that is reporting bullshit.

I did not read the methodology from the reported study, but the other options are too ludicrous to me.

I mean: suppose option C is true. So than in a country like Germany where 80 million people live (average IQ 100) plus 1 million refugees since the refugee 'crisis' started would lead to a roughly 2 point loss of IQ (exact 2.4 points)?

Than the average IQ of these refugees must have been: IQ=-((98x81)-(80x100))=62

That would mean that the average refugee in Germany is mentially challenged (see: http://www.free-iqtest.net/iq-score-guide.asp), which I fail to believe (actually it pains my mind, and I find it an utter disgrace that people want me to believe this ludicrous report)

So I opt for D, because 'It pays to keep an open mind, but no so open that your brains fall out' (Carl Sagan)

So than in a country like Germany where 80 million people live (average IQ 100) plus 1 million refugees since the refugee ‘crisis’ started would lead to a roughly 2 point loss of IQ (exact 2.4 points)?

Where exactly was it stated that all or indeed any of the IQ drop was caused by the recent refugee crisis?

Read this account of the conflicts between the Iberian Moors and the Franks under Charles Martel in the mid-700s, specifically the section "Aftermath", in which the Frankish innovation (or adoption) of stirrups is discussed that permitted them to field HEAVY CAVALRY to supplement their fearsome infantry, and gradually drive the Moors back beyond the Pyrenees.

The 700s, note. This does not discount other tactical innovations by the later Mongols, but let's get this misapprehension about the Mongol INVENTION of the stirrup sorted out, shall we? Parallel evolution is nothing new, I hope you will acknowledge.

Regards,
JJ

Welcome to the club. The club which misses the point, that is. How about you read this instead:

Btw, the point that you missed, along with everyone else is: It’s not important who invented the stirrups, but who was able to find a better use for them than anyone else. Inventing something doesn’t mean that you’ll be the best at it forever. Take example with the tank, the Brits invented it in WW1, but the best use for it was found by the Germans in WW2.

Thus saying that the Germans could not draw tactical advantage by using the tank because it’s the British who invented it doesn’t make any sense. Do you understand now? And enough already about the stupid stirrups.

What, exactly, is this number? Do you mean “less than half?” If so say so. Quit this ignorant comparison protocol that shows a complete lack of understanding of the language. This includes all of you who refer to such nonsense as “three times less.” IT IS “ONE THIRD OF…” you ninnies.

Read this account of the conflicts between the Iberian Moors and the Franks under Charles Martel in the mid-700s, specifically the section "Aftermath", in which the Frankish innovation (or adoption) of stirrups is discussed that permitted them to field HEAVY CAVALRY to supplement their fearsome infantry, and gradually drive the Moors back beyond the Pyrenees.

The 700s, note. This does not discount other tactical innovations by the later Mongols, but let's get this misapprehension about the Mongol INVENTION of the stirrup sorted out, shall we? Parallel evolution is nothing new, I hope you will acknowledge.

Regards,
JJ

My reading was that the Scythians invented the stirrup at around the time of the end of the Western Roman Empire. Prior to that there had been toe loops sometimes used only to help the rider get into the saddle. Stirrups are one of those inventions that seem so obvious that you can’t imagine why they weren’t invented almost immediately. People routinely rode on horseback for roughly 1000 years before stirrups were developed.

I don't think you have a full grasp of the issue, pal. It's not the question of whether the Europeans knew about the stirrups and whether they were using them, the issue is how they were using them. And they were using them just to get on the horse and that was it. The Mongols were using them throughout the battle, to stand up and get a better shot. Your theory about the military tactics of the Turks is bull too. Read about the sieges of Constantinople and Vienna. I don't see any "raids" there, just classic sieges.

The conquest of Constantinople and the numerous sieges of Vienna were done by Turks, not Mongolians completely different ethnic groups.
Those sieges occurred centuries after the Tatar Mongolians conquered Russia.
It’s just rude that your reply to me was so agressive and arrogant The least you could do is to consult the 4th grade level Wikepedia about the difference between Mongolians and Turks
It was a Persian Muslim immigrant, a history prof back in Persia who explained to me how the raid and run strategy of the Turks was so successful

One thing that I don't need is someone like you to teach me history. Do you even have any clue that you are contradicting yourself? Claiming that Turks used raids and acknowledging the sieges of Constantinople and Vienna at the same time. Doesn't it appear to you that siege and raid are two different things? And who said that those sieges were done by the Mongols? Go take a nap, partner. You seem little bit confused.

Dear AKarlin Sir,
If Central Asians are so IQ disadvantaged, then how come they managed to subjugate Russians in the Middle Ages? or were Russians only subjugated by the Mongols who tend to be at 100? I wonder what level of IQ did the Huns have as they managed to raze through Western Europe also

The Huns lost and were turned back to Central Asia. Photius. Com has the average Mongolian IQ as 101 fairly high, higher than most countries. The Huns never conquered Europe. Where did you learn your history?

What, exactly, is this number? Do you mean "less than half?" If so say so. Quit this ignorant comparison protocol that shows a complete lack of understanding of the language. This includes all of you who refer to such nonsense as "three times less." IT IS "ONE THIRD OF..." you ninnies.

It’s not a bad workaround for someone whose English is a bit patchy. Better than some of the careless ambiguities and non sequiturs that litter the threads.

"Many people do not know how much protein they need or how much they are getting"

Right.

"vegetables, whole grains and legumes are excellent sources of protein without the health risks from meat and other animal products"

There are no 'health risks' from eating animal products. The one study that came out saying that red meat causes cancer, specifically red meat cooked over charcoal briquettes. I believe the increase in cancer was like 5 percent, I haven't read the study in a while. But what the stupid news articles didn't say was that the increase in cancer was extremely negligible.

One more thing, most plant proteins are incomplete proteins and you need to combine some plant proteins to make complete proteins. The average person doesn't know how to supplement their diet correctly.

"One study found that those who consume more animal protein increased their risk of diabetes by 22%. Excessive protein intake is also associated with osteoporosis, cancer, kidney failure and heart disease."

No it doesn't.

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2014/03/animal-protein-as-bad-as-smoking/

"Someone who weighs 70 pounds only needs 56 grams of protein a day. The recommended amount (RDA) of protein for the average adult is 0.8 grams per kilogram of body weight."

Does this person go to the gym or not? Protein recommendations depend on whether or not the person is a gym-goer.

"Carbohydrates are the body's primary source of energy and should occupy most of your plate"

LOL do you understand how horribly wrong this is?

Carbohydrates spike insulin the most. Insulin inhibits the breakdown of fat in the adipose tissue by inhibiting the lipase that hydrolyzes (the chemical breakdown of a compound due to a reaction with water) the fat out of the cell. Since insulin facilitates the entry of glucose into the cell, when this occurs, the glucose is synthesized into glycerol. Along with the fatty acids in the liver, they both are synthesized into triglycerides in the liver. Due to these mechanisms, insulin is directly involved with the shuttling of more fat into the adipocyte. Since insulin has this effect on fat metabolism in the body, it has a fat-sparing effect. Insulin drives most cells to prefer carbohydrates for energy. Putting it all together, insulin indirectly stimulates the accumulation of fat into the adipose tissue.

"Truth: There is no need to plan meals around complementary proteins . In 2009, the "Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics" (AND) released an article stating that eating a variety of plant foods throughout the day provides all the necessary amino acids. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention agrees with the DNA and discredits the rumor that humans need to eat certain proteins together to receive proper nutrition."

Ummmm if you eat two incomplete proteins that don't make a complete protein, you're not getting the correct amount of amino acids.

"Excess calorie protein will not magically turn into muscle. To lose weight in a healthy way, it is important to have a balanced diet with a focus on all the necessary nutrients. Instead of following the fad of proteins, many people could benefit by finding ways to incorporate plant sources of protein into their meals."

Protein-rich diets keep you sated longer and staves off muscle catabolism while you're in a caloric deficit. Protein needs to be high during a caloric deficit.

There are no problems with high-protein diets if the individual is healthy.

Good for you!! What all the vegetarians and bogus nutritionists don’t know is that ALL carbs, including organic fruits and vegetables, whole grain bread, brown rice quinona and ALL the carbs they recommend are turned into glucose in the GI tract and enter the blood stream as glucose.
Glucose is glucose whether it comes from a tablespoon of White sugar or a tablespoon of health food store organic brown rice.

High carb diets lead to obesity and diabetes. High protein diets lead to slenderness and health.

The conquest of Constantinople and the numerous sieges of Vienna were done by Turks, not Mongolians completely different ethnic groups.
Those sieges occurred centuries after the Tatar Mongolians conquered Russia.
It's just rude that your reply to me was so agressive and arrogant The least you could do is to consult the 4th grade level Wikepedia about the difference between Mongolians and Turks
It was a Persian Muslim immigrant, a history prof back in Persia who explained to me how the raid and run strategy of the Turks was so successful

One thing that I don’t need is someone like you to teach me history. Do you even have any clue that you are contradicting yourself? Claiming that Turks used raids and acknowledging the sieges of Constantinople and Vienna at the same time. Doesn’t it appear to you that siege and raid are two different things? And who said that those sieges were done by the Mongols? Go take a nap, partner. You seem little bit confused.

Why are you so angry and agressive? From your posts I can diagnose you with diabetes. The medical books call it volatility and mood swings. Observers call it looking for a fight and not stopping till you goad someone into a fight

Take your insulin and follow your diet. And don't get into a road rage incident or parking lot fight as is the habit of out of control diabetics.

I d0n't want to legally import high IQ nonwhite Legal Immigrants into the US......for I d0n't want Asians in the Nati0n of my ancestors voting my Racial Tribe into a racial minority. In fact, I want the mass expulsion of all TATA Institute Grads out of America.

You’d be fine. Now we have a president that was unpresidented in US history.

Beginning from George Bush era for 8 years, and tiny blip of Obama for 8 years, and now we have a better president who will make America great again, I foresee in 100 years time, the Unites States of White nations will enjoy their pastime,

1. arguing over which reality show is the best,
2. contemplating where to work: Burger King or McDonald’s
3. longing for the weekend where they can sit and watch from the TV where they show East Asians space-cruising planets to planets

Of course, War for Blair Mountain occasionally comes and chimes in his thought on immigration.

Don’t believe me? Watch the UK, the once mighty country kneeling over President Xi and playing ping pong with Li Keqiang.

Highly amusing comment. Well, we in China have our own issues such as pollution but I do think we'll accomplish quite a bit especially on the space travel front. Long March 5 went well pretty, all in all. Now we just need to make sure that more than 20% of China reaches a reasonable GDP per capita.

Dear AKarlin Sir,
If Central Asians are so IQ disadvantaged, then how come they managed to subjugate Russians in the Middle Ages? or were Russians only subjugated by the Mongols who tend to be at 100? I wonder what level of IQ did the Huns have as they managed to raze through Western Europe also

One thing that I don't need is someone like you to teach me history. Do you even have any clue that you are contradicting yourself? Claiming that Turks used raids and acknowledging the sieges of Constantinople and Vienna at the same time. Doesn't it appear to you that siege and raid are two different things? And who said that those sieges were done by the Mongols? Go take a nap, partner. You seem little bit confused.

Why are you so angry and agressive? From your posts I can diagnose you with diabetes. The medical books call it volatility and mood swings. Observers call it looking for a fight and not stopping till you goad someone into a fight

Take your insulin and follow your diet. And don’t get into a road rage incident or parking lot fight as is the habit of out of control diabetics.

Can I get a second opinion on this - my diabetes, or you are such an expert that I shouldn't bother. No, you are right, I might have overreacted and I am sorry about it. I still don't think that your responses were well thought through, but it still didn't warrant such a harsh response. Anyway, anybody has the right to be wrong, we are all trying to learn something here and hopefully to correct each other when we are wrong, provided the other person can see the light of the argument. I hope I didn't cause you any emotional trauma with my comments. Take care.

You got it man. Another example - US without the nuclear weapons and how much they influenced the outcome of the WW2 against Japan and how it transformed them into superpower which without those weapons they would have never be able to become to the extent that they became and why they would never give up on those nuclear weapons. Clearly technological advantage doesn't play any role in history. Do me a favor, will you? Don't respond to my comments anymore, you don't have the intelligence to discuss anything with me.

Well, I guess it’s better that you take out your grumpiness and rage on Internet arguments instead of getting into physical fights with everyone you encounter.

Why are you so angry and agressive? From your posts I can diagnose you with diabetes. The medical books call it volatility and mood swings. Observers call it looking for a fight and not stopping till you goad someone into a fight

Take your insulin and follow your diet. And don't get into a road rage incident or parking lot fight as is the habit of out of control diabetics.

Can I get a second opinion on this – my diabetes, or you are such an expert that I shouldn’t bother. No, you are right, I might have overreacted and I am sorry about it. I still don’t think that your responses were well thought through, but it still didn’t warrant such a harsh response. Anyway, anybody has the right to be wrong, we are all trying to learn something here and hopefully to correct each other when we are wrong, provided the other person can see the light of the argument. I hope I didn’t cause you any emotional trauma with my comments. Take care.

Excellent comment. People are very ignorant of the actual history of Islam, because it's too "controversial" to share, but if one digs into it he finds that the major tenet of Islam throughout the centuries was to dominate, convert, and subjugate by force all other peoples.

So essentially, low IQ Muslims took over both literally and genetically as they spread out of the deserts. They were up against mostly peaceful Christians, pagans, zororasts, Buddhists, etc who were no match.

So you have to consider the pre-muslim and post-muslim genetic makeup of a country. Take Turkey: today it is 99% Muslim, but it used to be the heart of a Christian empire once, with almost no Muslims. Once you understand exactly how Turkey went from 0% to 99% Muslim, you will truly understand Islam.

Islam spread quickly because the Byzantine Empire and the Persian Sassanid dynasty had bled each other dry in the prior decades and were exhausted. I doubt either empire could be described as being mostly peaceful\Christian\pagan etc.

Also - they stupidly went out to meet the Muslim armies in pitched battle in open plains instead of tiring them out in siege warfare, of which the Arabs had little knowledge. They left their capitals with paltry garrisons which surrendered on demand. Out in pitched battle, they exposed themselves to what Prof. Mark W. Graham termed the "magnificent brutality" of the conquering Muslim armies. In the game of thrones you get to make those mistakes once or twice at best.

Anjem Choudhary was admitted to study medicine (tho he failed his first year courses probably because he was partying too much) and later qualified as a lawyer, studying at respectable UK universities. There is no affirmative action at UK universities and his family was rather poor, so he likely accomplished what he did academically through an above average IQ and\or conscientiousness compared to the UK average.

In any case the strongest First World results here would argue that northern European countries like finance centre Luxembourg and Switzerland would be better off banning immigration from comparatively low IQ Catholic southern Europe, which is not an especially prevalent argument I have seen online.

The author seems more concerned with gleefully pointing out the imported wogs and darkies are “biologically incompatible” with Western civilisation when there is little presented here to support that.

If the OECD average shows a less than 1 point average IQ drop as a result of immigration then either

1) the data analysis has been done incompetently
2) immigration has had minimal discernible impact on average IQ across the OECD
3) more detailed, granular work on immigration impact needs to be done at a county\country level than what is presented here

Agreed - from my experience, it seems IQ points may start dropping even in highly developed societies wherever smartphone and other electronic distractions are being introduced into the population at too early of an age:

"In any case the strongest First World results here would argue that northern European countries like finance centre Luxembourg and Switzerland would be better off banning immigration from comparatively low IQ Catholic southern Europe, which is not an especially prevalent argument I have seen online."

This is an absolutely idiotic and false statement. First of all, those Southern Europeans that you talk about disparagingly, are very much European and Westerners, while people like you and the Salafi scum Anjem Choudhary, are NOT.

Secondly, the differences in IQ between Northern Europe and Southern Europe are small, and Italy actually comes at the top in Europe, at 102-103.
Although I take IQ values with a big pinch of salt, it is actually countries such as Pakistan which exhibit much lower IQ values than those in Europe, North or South.

Islam spread quickly because the Byzantine Empire and the Persian Sassanid dynasty had bled each other dry in the prior decades and were exhausted. I doubt either empire could be described as being mostly peaceful\Christian\pagan etc.

Hey Ali,

Yeah – if one made the comment to the Sassanids that they were a bunch of peaceful pushovers, they might have one of their Hazar Mard tear off your head and piss down your throat.

The Byzantines might have blinded you and pulled out your tongue first before doing the same.

Anjem Choudhary was admitted to study medicine (tho he failed his first year courses probably because he was partying too much) and later qualified as a lawyer, studying at respectable UK universities. There is no affirmative action at UK universities and his family was rather poor, so he likely accomplished what he did academically through an above average IQ and\or conscientiousness compared to the UK average.

In any case the strongest First World results here would argue that northern European countries like finance centre Luxembourg and Switzerland would be better off banning immigration from comparatively low IQ Catholic southern Europe, which is not an especially prevalent argument I have seen online.

The author seems more concerned with gleefully pointing out the imported wogs and darkies are "biologically incompatible" with Western civilisation when there is little presented here to support that.

If the OECD average shows a less than 1 point average IQ drop as a result of immigration then either

1) the data analysis has been done incompetently2) immigration has had minimal discernible impact on average IQ across the OECD3) more detailed, granular work on immigration impact needs to be done at a county\country level than what is presented here

Hey Ali,

Agreed – from my experience, it seems IQ points may start dropping even in highly developed societies wherever smartphone and other electronic distractions are being introduced into the population at too early of an age:

Islam spread quickly because the Byzantine Empire and the Persian Sassanid dynasty had bled each other dry in the prior decades and were exhausted. I doubt either empire could be described as being mostly peaceful\Christian\pagan etc.

Also – they stupidly went out to meet the Muslim armies in pitched battle in open plains instead of tiring them out in siege warfare, of which the Arabs had little knowledge. They left their capitals with paltry garrisons which surrendered on demand. Out in pitched battle, they exposed themselves to what Prof. Mark W. Graham termed the “magnificent brutality” of the conquering Muslim armies. In the game of thrones you get to make those mistakes once or twice at best.

You'd be fine. Now we have a president that was unpresidented in US history.

Beginning from George Bush era for 8 years, and tiny blip of Obama for 8 years, and now we have a better president who will make America great again, I foresee in 100 years time, the Unites States of White nations will enjoy their pastime,

1. arguing over which reality show is the best,
2. contemplating where to work: Burger King or McDonald's
3. longing for the weekend where they can sit and watch from the TV where they show East Asians space-cruising planets to planets

Of course, War for Blair Mountain occasionally comes and chimes in his thought on immigration.

Don't believe me? Watch the UK, the once mighty country kneeling over President Xi and playing ping pong with Li Keqiang.

Highly amusing comment. Well, we in China have our own issues such as pollution but I do think we’ll accomplish quite a bit especially on the space travel front. Long March 5 went well pretty, all in all. Now we just need to make sure that more than 20% of China reaches a reasonable GDP per capita.

Agreed - from my experience, it seems IQ points may start dropping even in highly developed societies wherever smartphone and other electronic distractions are being introduced into the population at too early of an age:

A generation ago, the Irish were considered to be among the least intelligent people in western Europe.

“Considered to be” – what a scientific analysis. British cartoonists in the 19th and most of the 20th century loved to depict the Irish with ape-like features. This said more about the British than the Irish, however.

The generational IQ loss in Africa definitely seems exaggerated in Africa. I'm suspicious of any changes larger than 1 point per generation, and especially for countries with such low bases it doesn't look realistic. Can't comment on the rest.

It definitely is exaggerated. The measure is the more accurate, the more education outcomes resemble IQ distributions. in Africa you can assume that a lot of comparably intelligent people end up getting a low education because the education systems are shitty. Those undiscovered talents of course are included in the reproduction statistics of the low educated people.

Those IQ loss rates should be treated as the upper limit of loss, as children never perfectly in herit their parents IQ (I didn’t account for regression to the mean) and education systems are not perfect (I assumed that the smartest middle educated person is slightly less intelligent than the dumbest highly educated person, or in other words, I sliced the normal distribution of IQ according to education levels and their distribution).

due to their family policies which indirectly favor highly educated people (free/cheap childcare and an environment where mothers are generally in employment seems to do the trick).

I wouldn't agree that they do. The problem remains, like elsewhere, that high-IQ women spend their most fertile years in education or working rather than reproducing. In my highly educated Swedish SWPL MC/UMC surroundings, it leads to 0-2 children per couple. I think most aim for two. I don't personally know anyone my age or younger (let's say below 40) in my stratum who has had 3 children or more. In short, these policies do not seem to encourage the highly educated or intelligent to reproduce much.

The sole effect I'm aware of is that couples tend to cluster their two children to arrive about 2 years apart, because of the way child benefits are structured. It appears you get a maximally long paid parental leave that way. (Please don't ask me to delve into the details.)

In the Scandinavian countries the lower classes however don’t aim for or have more children than the highly educated. In Sweden e.g., the lowest educated people have 2 children on average, while university educated people have 1.9. In Germany it’s 1.6 for the low educated vs. 1.3 for the university graduates.

The diffference between the two countries (at least up until a few years ago), is that Swedish underclass women are working, while in Germany many are playing housewife. If you want to tackle underclass and immigrant fertility, bring their women into work. This will also break up traditional family patterns of immigrants, as it empowers their women.

In the US, university graduates have 1.7 children, which is not that different from Canada. However the low educated, which also have a higher share in the US than in Canada, have 2.4, while the smaller lower class in Canada breeds 1.9 children. The interesting thing is that most of the Canadian American fertility gap can be explained by the more fertile American underclass.

In Brazil, the lowest educated have 2.7 and the university educated have 1.2, to cite one of the very dysgenic countries (yes, this is lower than the corresponding German figure!).

Anjem Choudhary was admitted to study medicine (tho he failed his first year courses probably because he was partying too much) and later qualified as a lawyer, studying at respectable UK universities. There is no affirmative action at UK universities and his family was rather poor, so he likely accomplished what he did academically through an above average IQ and\or conscientiousness compared to the UK average.

In any case the strongest First World results here would argue that northern European countries like finance centre Luxembourg and Switzerland would be better off banning immigration from comparatively low IQ Catholic southern Europe, which is not an especially prevalent argument I have seen online.

The author seems more concerned with gleefully pointing out the imported wogs and darkies are "biologically incompatible" with Western civilisation when there is little presented here to support that.

If the OECD average shows a less than 1 point average IQ drop as a result of immigration then either

1) the data analysis has been done incompetently2) immigration has had minimal discernible impact on average IQ across the OECD3) more detailed, granular work on immigration impact needs to be done at a county\country level than what is presented here

“In any case the strongest First World results here would argue that northern European countries like finance centre Luxembourg and Switzerland would be better off banning immigration from comparatively low IQ Catholic southern Europe, which is not an especially prevalent argument I have seen online.”

This is an absolutely idiotic and false statement. First of all, those Southern Europeans that you talk about disparagingly, are very much European and Westerners, while people like you and the Salafi scum Anjem Choudhary, are NOT.

Secondly, the differences in IQ between Northern Europe and Southern Europe are small, and Italy actually comes at the top in Europe, at 102-103.
Although I take IQ values with a big pinch of salt, it is actually countries such as Pakistan which exhibit much lower IQ values than those in Europe, North or South.

PISA is not a test about cognitive ability but about learning levels achieved.

1. PISA correlates very well with explicit tests of cognitive ability.

2. People with greater cognitive ability tend to achieve higher learning levels. This is especially germane to natives vs. second gen immigrants, who have been exposed to very similar learning (nutritional, etc) environments (who in Europe do not converge).

The successful absorption of many from poorer nations that struggle to provide adequate services (many of which do not score well on PISA) has not materially degraded the high performance levels of Canadian education.

Canada has a functionally cognitively elitist immigration policy based on points.

I mean it is practically an IQ test: http://www.canada-da.com/calculator.html

However, Canada still dilutes its high quality immigrants with Somali refugees and so the net effect is close to zero instead of positive.

Karlin: “PISA correlates very well with explicit tests of cognitive ability.”

PISA scores are NOT a reliable approximation of IQ, as your absurd list of ‘native IQs converted from PISA according to calculations by commenter “m”’, shows so well.

The racialreality blog, commented:

But Lynn already knows the pitfalls of his approach. Finland had the highest score in Europe on the 2006 PISA tests, and using his method leads to a calculated IQ of 107, yet he reports Finns’ IQ as being just 97. Romanians’ PISA score is near the very bottom of Europe, leading to an estimate of 85, though their measured IQ is in fact 94 according to Lynn, just three points lower than that of Finns. With discrepancies like that, there’s absolutely no reason to trust his calculated IQs of around 100 and 90 for Northern and Southern Italians. Clearly, PISA scores are not a good substitute for IQ.

Furthermore:

Indeed, while some researchers report a strong correlation between general intelligence and educational attainment, one of Lynn’s own sources, Deary et al. (2007), addressing two of his other sources, suggests that caution should be exercised when attempting to equate the two:Whereas the correlations indicate that around 50% to 60% of the variance in GCSE [General Certificate of Secondary Education] examination points score can be statistically explained by the prior g [general intelligence] factor, by the same token a large proportion of the variance is not accounted for by g. Some of the remaining variance in GCSE scores will be measurement error, but some will be systematic. Thus, non-g factors have a substantial impact on educational attainment. These may include: school attendance and engagement; pupils’ personality traits, motivation and effort; the extent of parental support; and the provision of appropriate learning experiences, teaching quality, school ethos, and structure among other possible factors (Petrides, Chamorro-Premuzic, Frederickson, & Furnham, 2005; Strand, 2003).’

Your absurd list has Argentina at 85, while Lynn himself reports Argentina’s national IQ as 96.
His revised data( and work by Wicherts) places Italy at the top of Europe, at 102-103, but in your list, Italy is supposed to have a lower IQ than Portugal, which Lynn has reported as 91-95.
Ireland he reports at only 87-93. Etc, etc.

To contribute, using the same method as I used before, here are my equivalent PISA derived “IQ” measures for 2nd Generation migrants* calculated alongside the natives

All in sequence (sorted by magnitude)-

With natives and 2nd gen side by side, and the gap measure (sorted by gap size) -

Gap charted against Natives score -

This should make clear the distinction between where the biggest gaps are against where the biggest effects are (see the table Anatoly posted up). Some places with big gaps (e.g. Brazil / Slovakia at one end and to a lesser extent Hungary at the other) see little present day immigration.

* I used 2nd Generation to remove the effect in any 1st Generation of delayed language skills due to learning a second language. This does mean this could mute some effects from immigration changing cognitive direction somewhat.

"In any case the strongest First World results here would argue that northern European countries like finance centre Luxembourg and Switzerland would be better off banning immigration from comparatively low IQ Catholic southern Europe, which is not an especially prevalent argument I have seen online."

This is an absolutely idiotic and false statement. First of all, those Southern Europeans that you talk about disparagingly, are very much European and Westerners, while people like you and the Salafi scum Anjem Choudhary, are NOT.

Secondly, the differences in IQ between Northern Europe and Southern Europe are small, and Italy actually comes at the top in Europe, at 102-103.
Although I take IQ values with a big pinch of salt, it is actually countries such as Pakistan which exhibit much lower IQ values than those in Europe, North or South.

LK,

I am not arguing for southern European migration to be banned, my point was the IQ values extrapolated here from PISA and the estimated impact on destination countries looks pretty unreliable.

The Lynn figure of 102 for Italy IQ is 5 points higher than the 97 here. Since the bulk of Italian emigration would have been to northern Europe, how can the impact analysis here be given credence.

due to their family policies which indirectly favor highly educated people (free/cheap childcare and an environment where mothers are generally in employment seems to do the trick).

I wouldn't agree that they do. The problem remains, like elsewhere, that high-IQ women spend their most fertile years in education or working rather than reproducing. In my highly educated Swedish SWPL MC/UMC surroundings, it leads to 0-2 children per couple. I think most aim for two. I don't personally know anyone my age or younger (let's say below 40) in my stratum who has had 3 children or more. In short, these policies do not seem to encourage the highly educated or intelligent to reproduce much.

The sole effect I'm aware of is that couples tend to cluster their two children to arrive about 2 years apart, because of the way child benefits are structured. It appears you get a maximally long paid parental leave that way. (Please don't ask me to delve into the details.)

“In the Scandinavian countries the lower classes however don’t aim for or have more children than the highly educated.”

I see, I would formulate that like this: Sweden (or Scandinavia) indirectly reduces the fertility of all women by having them work rather than be at home (assuming that is the cause). This would reduce the fertility of low-education women, who would be house wives, more than that of highly-ed worker bee women.

(Another contributing factor could be the Swedish population moving from the countryside to the city.)

You might well be right in this. Unfortunately, it should be added that we now have a large class of migrants who break this model.

I have heard that the Lynn figures on Italy were in fact drawn from a sample of Northern Italians. In this case, their IQ estimate resembles the PISA results of 2012 for Northern Italy perfectly. Results for Italian regions were available in the 2012 round and Northern Italy came in at around 102, Central Italy at 98 and Southern Italy at 94, similar to Greece.

besides that, many of the studies Lynn cited, had only very small sample sizes, often in the double-digits, so they can only give a rough estimation. PISA tests, even though they are not designated IQ tests, have a much bigger sample size, and I’d say if you even them out across some rounds, you’ll get pretty accurate estimates for developed countries.

For 2016, the Annex B (http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/pisa-2015-results-volume-i/results-tables-immigrant-background-student-performance-and-students-attitudes-towards-science_9789264266490-table125-en;jsessionid=k37wmcvo1of9.x-oecd-live-03) drills down to scores for subregions.

Math, Science and Reading for subregions and Science broken down into both subregions and migrant background or not.

So assuming Science is not a big outlier for these places, using a quick regression equation on Science scores against the "IQ" I worked out before ("IQ" = 6.8964+(0.18308*Science) ), that translates to a Native "IQ":

Scores based on all 3 PISA variables (if we had them) would probably wobble a point or so from that in either direction.

The education or "IQ" gap in Italy is by far the biggest in any European nation, and along with Cypriots, Montenegrins, Romanians and Bulgarians, Southern Italians seem to be the worst participating Europeans, while Northern Italians score comparably to Northwest Europeans and almost as well as the top performing Central European natives (German and Swiss). Differences in Spain (the North vs South) and the UK (England vs the Welsh periphery) are not quite as big.

It is a puzzle as to whether that reflects any kind of genetic difference, or it is more difference in the cultural approach and deprivation and funding. I think its hard for me to imagine its mainly a genetic difference.

So than in a country like Germany where 80 million people live (average IQ 100) plus 1 million refugees since the refugee ‘crisis’ started would lead to a roughly 2 point loss of IQ (exact 2.4 points)?

Where exactly was it stated that all or indeed any of the IQ drop was caused by the recent refugee crisis?

This also doesn't help in understanding what this paper is actually about, i.e. not race, but class

'Western Europe is a complete disaster zone, getting a harder cognitive hit even though the immigrant share of their population is considerably smaller than the US, where they constitute almost a quarter of the PISA-taking population. The German national average takes an astounding 2.4 IQ point hit due to immigrants. Moreover, there is no full convergence between first and second generation immigrants. Although one can hope the children of all those Syrian “doctors and engineers” will go on to become productive and loyal citizens, past experience suggests that they will merely bolster the sullen ranks of a permanent, growing, ethnically distinct, and highly criminalized underclass.'

This also doesn’t help in understanding what this paper is actually about, i.e. not race, but class

‘Western Europe is a complete disaster zone, getting a harder cognitive hit even though the immigrant share of their population is considerably smaller than the US, where they constitute almost a quarter of the PISA-taking population. The German national average takes an astounding 2.4 IQ point hit due to immigrants. Moreover, there is no full convergence between first and second generation immigrants. Although one can hope the children of all those Syrian “doctors and engineers” will go on to become productive and loyal citizens, past experience suggests that they will merely bolster the sullen ranks of a permanent, growing, ethnically distinct, and highly criminalized underclass.’

Fair enough, that is below average and maybe true (if you believe the report, which maybe is the best evidence we have).

Is that IQ so low because they 'are not sending their best'?

Let's do a thought experiment and say that we are in early 19th century America where a study found that 'the negro' (so they were called at that time) had on average a lower IQ than 'the white man'. Would that lead to the conclusion that

a) slave drivers had not sent their best from Africa to the US (this is what your title is suggesting)

b) that negroes are intellectualy inferior to the white man and will therefore 'bolster the sullen ranks of a permanent, growing, ethnically distinct, and highly criminalized underclass' (as you say in your article when you talk about the children of Syrian refugees)

Let's talk about opportunity (ad b)
- Your article completely missed the fact that immigrants who come to for instance Germany often don't speak German, are held, sometimes for years, in asylums where there is nothing else to do but pray that they are not sent back to their war ridden country, are discriminated by the native population through and through, are only good enough to do the shitty jobs, and that therefore they and their offspring have a lower chance to start with to get a fair education which could raise their IQ to levels that are above the Trobianders ('in this world' is a nice fictional documentary that touches this problem of the immigrant). This is what I missed in your article. That they 'will bolster the sullen ranks of a permanent, growing, ethnically distinct, and highly criminalized underclass' only depends if they are giving a fair chance to get an equal education as the natives have. Which leads to ad a)

ad a) your article has not shown that they are 'not sending their best'. 'They' (whoever they are), might have sent their best, but since they did not get a fair chance to achieve a similar education as the natives, they will have less opportunity to raise their IQ to levels that are comparable with the natives.

If you want to do something about that inequality, which I am sure you want to, you would not start your article by saying that they did not sent their best.

I was wrong by saying that this paper should be retracted and I am sorry for having said that. It is just that if I were you, I would have retracted it, because the article highly suggests that racism is the cause for a drop in average IQ levels in countries like Germany due to immigrants. While it is actually more likely because of less opportunity given to immigrants by the natives.

This also doesn't help in understanding what this paper is actually about, i.e. not race, but class

'Western Europe is a complete disaster zone, getting a harder cognitive hit even though the immigrant share of their population is considerably smaller than the US, where they constitute almost a quarter of the PISA-taking population. The German national average takes an astounding 2.4 IQ point hit due to immigrants. Moreover, there is no full convergence between first and second generation immigrants. Although one can hope the children of all those Syrian “doctors and engineers” will go on to become productive and loyal citizens, past experience suggests that they will merely bolster the sullen ranks of a permanent, growing, ethnically distinct, and highly criminalized underclass.'

Fair enough, that is below average and maybe true (if you believe the report, which maybe is the best evidence we have).

Is that IQ so low because they ‘are not sending their best’?

Let’s do a thought experiment and say that we are in early 19th century America where a study found that ‘the negro’ (so they were called at that time) had on average a lower IQ than ‘the white man’. Would that lead to the conclusion that

a) slave drivers had not sent their best from Africa to the US (this is what your title is suggesting)

b) that negroes are intellectualy inferior to the white man and will therefore ‘bolster the sullen ranks of a permanent, growing, ethnically distinct, and highly criminalized underclass’ (as you say in your article when you talk about the children of Syrian refugees)

Let’s talk about opportunity (ad b)
- Your article completely missed the fact that immigrants who come to for instance Germany often don’t speak German, are held, sometimes for years, in asylums where there is nothing else to do but pray that they are not sent back to their war ridden country, are discriminated by the native population through and through, are only good enough to do the shitty jobs, and that therefore they and their offspring have a lower chance to start with to get a fair education which could raise their IQ to levels that are above the Trobianders (‘in this world’ is a nice fictional documentary that touches this problem of the immigrant). This is what I missed in your article. That they ‘will bolster the sullen ranks of a permanent, growing, ethnically distinct, and highly criminalized underclass’ only depends if they are giving a fair chance to get an equal education as the natives have. Which leads to ad a)

ad a) your article has not shown that they are ‘not sending their best’. ‘They’ (whoever they are), might have sent their best, but since they did not get a fair chance to achieve a similar education as the natives, they will have less opportunity to raise their IQ to levels that are comparable with the natives.

If you want to do something about that inequality, which I am sure you want to, you would not start your article by saying that they did not sent their best.

I was wrong by saying that this paper should be retracted and I am sorry for having said that. It is just that if I were you, I would have retracted it, because the article highly suggests that racism is the cause for a drop in average IQ levels in countries like Germany due to immigrants. While it is actually more likely because of less opportunity given to immigrants by the natives.

I have heard that the Lynn figures on Italy were in fact drawn from a sample of Northern Italians. In this case, their IQ estimate resembles the PISA results of 2012 for Northern Italy perfectly. Results for Italian regions were available in the 2012 round and Northern Italy came in at around 102, Central Italy at 98 and Southern Italy at 94, similar to Greece.

besides that, many of the studies Lynn cited, had only very small sample sizes, often in the double-digits, so they can only give a rough estimation. PISA tests, even though they are not designated IQ tests, have a much bigger sample size, and I'd say if you even them out across some rounds, you'll get pretty accurate estimates for developed countries.

So assuming Science is not a big outlier for these places, using a quick regression equation on Science scores against the “IQ” I worked out before (“IQ” = 6.8964+(0.18308*Science) ), that translates to a Native “IQ”:

Scores based on all 3 PISA variables (if we had them) would probably wobble a point or so from that in either direction.

The education or “IQ” gap in Italy is by far the biggest in any European nation, and along with Cypriots, Montenegrins, Romanians and Bulgarians, Southern Italians seem to be the worst participating Europeans, while Northern Italians score comparably to Northwest Europeans and almost as well as the top performing Central European natives (German and Swiss). Differences in Spain (the North vs South) and the UK (England vs the Welsh periphery) are not quite as big.

It is a puzzle as to whether that reflects any kind of genetic difference, or it is more difference in the cultural approach and deprivation and funding. I think its hard for me to imagine its mainly a genetic difference.

For 2016, the Annex B (http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/pisa-2015-results-volume-i/results-tables-immigrant-background-student-performance-and-students-attitudes-towards-science_9789264266490-table125-en;jsessionid=k37wmcvo1of9.x-oecd-live-03) drills down to scores for subregions.

Math, Science and Reading for subregions and Science broken down into both subregions and migrant background or not.

So assuming Science is not a big outlier for these places, using a quick regression equation on Science scores against the "IQ" I worked out before ("IQ" = 6.8964+(0.18308*Science) ), that translates to a Native "IQ":

Scores based on all 3 PISA variables (if we had them) would probably wobble a point or so from that in either direction.

The education or "IQ" gap in Italy is by far the biggest in any European nation, and along with Cypriots, Montenegrins, Romanians and Bulgarians, Southern Italians seem to be the worst participating Europeans, while Northern Italians score comparably to Northwest Europeans and almost as well as the top performing Central European natives (German and Swiss). Differences in Spain (the North vs South) and the UK (England vs the Welsh periphery) are not quite as big.

It is a puzzle as to whether that reflects any kind of genetic difference, or it is more difference in the cultural approach and deprivation and funding. I think its hard for me to imagine its mainly a genetic difference.

Estonia have a greater % of ethnic minorities, result of the ”russification policy” during the soviet ”sweet” years. Ethnic estonians, who are genetically finnic-ugric, were better in PISA tests, similar to the finnish kids & teens, than those on the ethnic minorities*

For 2016, the Annex B (http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/pisa-2015-results-volume-i/results-tables-immigrant-background-student-performance-and-students-attitudes-towards-science_9789264266490-table125-en;jsessionid=k37wmcvo1of9.x-oecd-live-03) drills down to scores for subregions.

Math, Science and Reading for subregions and Science broken down into both subregions and migrant background or not.

So assuming Science is not a big outlier for these places, using a quick regression equation on Science scores against the "IQ" I worked out before ("IQ" = 6.8964+(0.18308*Science) ), that translates to a Native "IQ":

Scores based on all 3 PISA variables (if we had them) would probably wobble a point or so from that in either direction.

The education or "IQ" gap in Italy is by far the biggest in any European nation, and along with Cypriots, Montenegrins, Romanians and Bulgarians, Southern Italians seem to be the worst participating Europeans, while Northern Italians score comparably to Northwest Europeans and almost as well as the top performing Central European natives (German and Swiss). Differences in Spain (the North vs South) and the UK (England vs the Welsh periphery) are not quite as big.

It is a puzzle as to whether that reflects any kind of genetic difference, or it is more difference in the cultural approach and deprivation and funding. I think its hard for me to imagine its mainly a genetic difference.

For 2016, the Annex B (http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/pisa-2015-results-volume-i/results-tables-immigrant-background-student-performance-and-students-attitudes-towards-science_9789264266490-table125-en;jsessionid=k37wmcvo1of9.x-oecd-live-03) drills down to scores for subregions.

Math, Science and Reading for subregions and Science broken down into both subregions and migrant background or not.

So assuming Science is not a big outlier for these places, using a quick regression equation on Science scores against the "IQ" I worked out before ("IQ" = 6.8964+(0.18308*Science) ), that translates to a Native "IQ":

Scores based on all 3 PISA variables (if we had them) would probably wobble a point or so from that in either direction.

The education or "IQ" gap in Italy is by far the biggest in any European nation, and along with Cypriots, Montenegrins, Romanians and Bulgarians, Southern Italians seem to be the worst participating Europeans, while Northern Italians score comparably to Northwest Europeans and almost as well as the top performing Central European natives (German and Swiss). Differences in Spain (the North vs South) and the UK (England vs the Welsh periphery) are not quite as big.

It is a puzzle as to whether that reflects any kind of genetic difference, or it is more difference in the cultural approach and deprivation and funding. I think its hard for me to imagine its mainly a genetic difference.

Do you mind if I quote a couple of your posts as long as I provide credit and sources back to your webpage?
My blog is in the very same niche as yours and my users would
truly benefit from a lot of the information you present
here. Please let me know if this alright with you. Many thanks!

Blogroll

This is not so much meant to be comprehensive as to illustrate the themes and individual thinkers whom I follow and am inspired by.

I do not bother including any MSM outlets, since I’m sure they can do just fine without my publicity.

Blogs which I consider to be particularly good and/or prominent are highlighted in bold, and blogs that appear to have gone dormant appear at the end in italics. While I try to keep these things objective, if you include me in your blogroll that does vastly increase the chances that I’ll reciprocate.